criminalizing the innocent?

[homercles]

Lately i have been seeing adverts for "you drink, you drive, you loose," which are profoundly misleading in numerous ways, but primarily in the realm of TOLERANCE. These groups are hell bent on criminalizing a very subjective grey area--that of driving after consuming alcohol. The problem is that this is NOT an area of black-and-whites.

Facts:

"Motor co-ordination shows the most tolerance to alcohol consumption." Hence the reason that numerous people pass the "road side sobriety," and are thus capable of operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner, but fail the BAC test.

"Repeated exposure of the metabolizing system (mainly the liver) to alcohol increases the system's capability and efficiency. As a result, the alcohol is metabolized more quickly and the duration and intensity of the desired effect are considerably reduced. This is called metabolic tolerance" and the reason why BAC is a terrible way of determining ones level of "impairment."

However.....

More than 2x as many fatal highway accidents occur due to people falling asleep at the wheel or simply being inattentive as opposed to driving after consuming.

So why are the innocent in this country being treated as the guilty?

[ductonius]

Originally posted by homercles
So why are the innocent in this country being treated as the guilty?

Thats only if you concinder those who consume alchohol and then drive as "innocent".

What you are complaining about is simply a difference of opinion.

[Dreadnaught]

The fact that everyone has different tolerances at different times is just one thing that makes this a black-and-white issue. Alchohol naturally affects coordination as much as any other kind of drug. Driving in itself can be dangerous enough without alcohol. To imply that there's a reason people should be allowed to increase the risks is just an affront to reason and what my insurance premiums will be. :bulb:

[Lewkowski]

Every city I've been to had a taxi service. Call em up. Sure it costs more, but better then killing someone, or getting a ticket.

[homercles]

Originally posted by ductonius
Thats only if you concinder those who consume alchohol and then drive as "innocent".

What you are complaining about is simply a difference of opinion.

No its not a matter of "opinion." Law enforcement has done their best in developing tests to determine if an individual is capable of operating a vehicle safely. This test measures motor coordination and cognitive functioning among other things. This is obvioulsy the "road side sobriety test." By ALL opinions if an idividual passes this test s/he is capable of operating a vehicle safely and as such has commited no crime. However, that person can still be arrested and imprisoned if BAC is above some arbitrary level.

Im not arguing that an individual that is clearly impaired and fails the road side sobriety test should be considered innocent, but rather that people who pass the road side test yest "fail" a BAC test should not be criminalized.

To Lewk: You have clearly been mislead by the propaganda. :sour: Does everyone that drives after say, one drink, turn into a crazy, out of control, drunk driver capable of mowing down innocent drivers and pedestrians alike? :confused:

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
Does everyone that drives after say, one drink, turn into a crazy, out of control, drunk driver capable of mowing down innocent drivers and pedestrians alike? :confused:

No, but their reaction time will still be slower than normal.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
No, but their reaction time will still be slower than normal.

Not if they have tolerance to alcohol. Your point is another one of the misconceptions of alcohol use.

[Moonsinger]

Drunk people rarely admit that they are drunk. When people are dunk, they offen think that they aren't drunk yet. Most drunk people don't know that they have reached their tolerance level of alcohol consumption. Therefore, it's not unfair to say that if we drink, we don't drive regardless of how much we drink, period. Better be safe than to be sorry later.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
Not if they have tolerance to alcohol. Your point is another one of the misconceptions of alcohol use.

A hogh tolerance is almost a myth. It is their perception to being drunk. You almost have to be an alchohalic to get a higher tolerance. Social drinking won't increase it. Also you don't have to be a crazy out of cotrol driver to cause someone to get hurt. Police use a filed sobriety test or a breathalyzer to determine your level of imparement. They can take you in if you fail either of them.
Simple dont drink and drive.

[GADefence]

I can generalise the defenders of driving drunk by quoting my old french class. "Beer doesn't kill brain cells, it makes smarter ones grow back!!"

[AR81]

Drinking is being a slave of fashion.
It is socially cool to drink, so you are part of the crowd, another brick in the wall.
By drinking you are either escaping reality or doing it for "coolness".

How about saving your life and not drinking?
How about saving other people's lives?

**WARNING!! CLICKING ON THE FOLLOWING LINKS IS NOT FOR SENSITIVE PEOPLE**

If you still believe that all people in accidents involving alcohol just die, then read THIS (http://www.helpjacqui.com/home.htm) OR THIS (http://texasdwi.org/jacqui.html) to see the case of Jacqueline Saburido about drinking and driving.

Most of people who kill of severely harm people in car accidents use to be candidates to suicide. You drink and drive if you want. But consider yourself warned on what could happen to you if you survive.

[Uber_olafsun]

I saw a post on another site with people trying to make it legal to drink and drive. One of the replies was sure as long as its legal to run their swerving butt off the road.

[Phobas]

Being a non-drinker I can't help but wonder what is the problem with not drinking and driving.
Get a cab, or get a sober fool like myself to give you a lift back home. Work round this law that is sensible.
Do you have to drink, no (if you do you might just be an alchoholic)
Does drinking impair your senses, I've seen statistic on alcahol induced acidents, they are not good.
This law is important in preventing death by car acidents. All you have to do be be responsible for your actions.

As for tollerance, it is difficult to measure both from a legal and a personal sense.
A breathaliser may not measure tollerance, walking in a strait line might, but what about reaction time, or other phycological effect.

More importantly to have this loophole will lead many people to say i'm ok i'm tolerant, I can take my beers. When this is clearly not the case.

Like I said im not a drinker so perhaps i'm being harsh not understanding the importance in it, but I think the facts speek for themselves.

[AR81]

It is a fact that alcohol can reduce the skills needed to drive, increasing the chances of a deadly accident.

So laws are designed to prevent this.

If you want to drink and drive, do it on your own, you might become a depressed candidate to suicide if you kill or ham someone. Also, laws will punish you, so do it under your own risk.

[homercles]

No one here has yet to address my point. It is possible to have consumed alcohol and still have reaction times, visual performance, coordination, etc that is no different from someone that has not consumed any alcohol. Tolerance will make it possible for one to consume even more alcohol and still have no difficulty with the field sobriety test which was SPECIFICALLY designed to test one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. BAC does nothing to determine this, in fact the "cutoff" for impairment is conpletely ARBITRARY. Yet this "test" is used as a measure for sending folks to jail and slapping them with huge fines? :confused:

To AR: you have got some serious issues buddy. Plus i never said anything about people who cause accidents when impaired. :mad: Please, read the posts before spreading more unnecessary propaganda.

[Loki]

How would you measure this tolerance?

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
No one here has yet to address my point. It is possible to have consumed alcohol and still have reaction times, visual performance, coordination, etc that is no different from someone that has not consumed any alcohol. Tolerance will make it possible for one to consume even more alcohol and still have no difficulty with the field sobriety test which was SPECIFICALLY designed to test one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. BAC does nothing to determine this, in fact the "cutoff" for impairment is conpletely ARBITRARY. Yet this "test" is used as a measure for sending folks to jail and slapping them with huge fines? :confused:

To AR: you have got some serious issues buddy. Plus i never said anything about people who cause accidents when impaired. :mad: Please, read the posts before spreading more unnecessary propaganda.

Where are your facts that you can drink and have no affect on your ability at all? Also how many drinks over what time?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
No its not a matter of "opinion." Law enforcement has done their best in developing tests to determine if an individual is capable of operating a vehicle safely. This test measures motor coordination and cognitive functioning among other things. This is obvioulsy the "road side sobriety test." By ALL opinions if an idividual passes this test s/he is capable of operating a vehicle safely and as such has commited no crime. However, that person can still be arrested and imprisoned if BAC is above some arbitrary level.

Im not arguing that an individual that is clearly impaired and fails the road side sobriety test should be considered innocent, but rather that people who pass the road side test yest "fail" a BAC test should not be criminalized.

To Lewk: You have clearly been mislead by the propaganda. :sour: Does everyone that drives after say, one drink, turn into a crazy, out of control, drunk driver capable of mowing down innocent drivers and pedestrians alike? :confused:

Cles, give up, you'll never be able to take on MADD. and with good reason

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
How would you measure this tolerance?

Isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Havent i made that clear? The field sobriety test is the single best measure of whether one is capable of operating a motor vehicle safely. Fail the test, youre not capable of driving safely, go to jail. What im asking is why is it that one who passes the field sobriety test and fails the breathalizer goes to jail? This recently happened to a friend of mine. He has also told me stories of how other people (in some alcohol class he has to take) were "caught" by law enforcement when it was clear that they were not any danger to themselves or others. :mad:

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
Havent i made that clear? The field sobriety test is the single best measure of whether one is capable of operating a motor vehicle safely. Fail the test, youre not capable of driving safely, go to jail. What im asking is why is it that one who passes the field sobriety test and fails the breathalizer goes to jail? This recently happened to a friend of mine. He has also told me stories of how other people (in some alcohol class he has to take) were "caught" by law enforcement when it was clear that they were not any danger to themselves or others. :mad:

Because that is what the Govt. set at a limit. You wanted a tangible thing to measure. There it is. It is a 2 part test. You do both. As to the judgement of ability. That is why they use both. What if one day they get in a car after drinking they go home fine. Next day they drink more and same thing. Third time get behind the wheel they get in an accident. It is called a deterant. It says that even though you feel fine you might not be.

Also what about people that are close to the limit when they leave a bar? They could have had a drink or 2 that has not processed into their system and it could kick in while they are driving.

[AR81]

Originally posted by homercles
To AR: you have got some serious issues buddy. Plus i never said anything about people who cause accidents when impaired. :mad: Please, read the posts before spreading more unnecessary propaganda. Sorry, it is my style to use strong words. Loki can tell you about that.

As for tolerance, it would be quite hard to make customized tolerance level for each driver. Imagine millions of drivers and the cost of maintenance of a database with the data so cops can see your tolerance.

It's not practical. It is better a standard that prevents lack of tolerance.

[Azariel]

Originally posted by AR81
Drinking is being a slave of fashion.
It is socially cool to drink, so you are part of the crowd, another brick in the wall.
By drinking you are either escaping reality or doing it for "coolness".

That is an uncorrect generalization. There may be people who drink for coolness or because others in their group drink for coolness, but there is something like drinking for the taste of it. Of course, those are rarely the ones who drink until they're drunk. But one can drink quite a few beers an evening without being actually drunk. 5-6 liters over the time (~5 hours) are possible.
Also several alcoholic drink that are healthy. Red wine p.e. is healthy if no maore than one glass per day is consumed, on a regular basis. (one glass each day (preferrebly after dinner, no more.)

Nonetheless, drinking and driving ought to be a no-no. Even if your blood alcohol values are below the allowed limit, your driving skills will suffer. The law is a compromise, it defines a limit at wich your reaction etc. are reduced, but still high enough. Nonetheless, the risk is higher with alcohol than without, and just because it is low enough to be legal doesn't mean it's not there. Basing a law on something as subjective as personal tolerance is simply impracticable.

I totally agree with Phobas, where is the problem not to drive after drinking? The few people who go to pub or a party alone just have to use a taxi, if you're not alone someone of the crowd doesn't drink and can drive you home. Draw straws or use a rotation to define who that is. That may be inconvenient, but is still better then risking your life and that of others. Even if you'd drink only one beer, and keep the risk at level low enough to be legal.

[Obispo]

Originally posted by homercles


So why are the innocent in this country being treated as the guilty?

Because the majority of the U.S. is a puritanical society and drinking any alcohol is morally reprehensible.

These adds and all others over the last 20 some years that I can remember are mines of misinformation and a direct attempt to make the general public view drinking as a stigmata.

It's the same as the current Anti Smoking campaign, the War On Drug and other things.

But, it is not illegal in all areas of the united states to drink and drive, only to drive while intoxicated, and that includes things other than alcohol.

After all, some sections of states like Texas have drive through bars just like the drive up window at McDonalds.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Also what about people that are close to the limit when they leave a bar? They could have had a drink or 2 that has not processed into their system and it could kick in while they are driving.

Good point!:up: In that case, they may pass the sobriety test but fail the breathalizer test.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by homercles
No its not a matter of "opinion." Law enforcement has done their best in developing tests to determine if an individual is capable of operating a vehicle safely. This test measures motor coordination and cognitive functioning among other things. This is obvioulsy the "road side sobriety test." By ALL opinions if an idividual passes this test s/he is capable of operating a vehicle safely and as such has commited no crime. However, that person can still be arrested and imprisoned if BAC is above some arbitrary level.

You are of the opinion that as long as you can fake your way through a sobriety test, it should be legal to operating a motorvehicle.

Others, particularly the courts, are of the opinion that if you have above X% in your blood, you should not drive.

In a test of your opinoin vs theirs, you'll loose.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by homercles
No one here has yet to address my point. It is possible to have consumed alcohol and still have reaction times, visual performance, coordination, etc that is no different from someone that has not consumed any alcohol. Tolerance will make it possible for one to consume even more alcohol and still have no difficulty with the field sobriety test which was SPECIFICALLY designed to test one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. BAC does nothing to determine this, in fact the "cutoff" for impairment is conpletely ARBITRARY. Yet this "test" is used as a measure for sending folks to jail and slapping them with huge fines? :confused:

Dude, so many people I know can fake a sobriety test and be totally unfit for driving. Like my friend York, who can recite the alphabet backwards from memory and move his arms, legs, and eyes as if he were sober. But put him into a car and he starts making stupid mistakes like speeding, not turning on headlights, not checking mirrors or looking in all needed directions when making turns and such.

He's been in a few accidents (never hurt bad), but the fact is that he's always been drunk when this has happened. Though now he's moved on to cocaine. :bulb:

The sobriety and breath tests only try to establish some kind of means of determining if one is too drunk. But because they aren't totally accurate and perfect (as you've mentioned), driving itself is inherantly risky, and alcohol is a chemical substance one just shouldn't take the risk or allow people to do so as well.

[RandBlade]

As probably this forums biggest drunk I hereby say:

If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot. I hope you get arrested and lose your licence before someone else loses their life.

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by homercles
Havent i made that clear? The field sobriety test is the single best measure of whether one is capable of operating a motor vehicle safely. Fail the test, youre not capable of driving safely, go to jail. What im asking is why is it that one who passes the field sobriety test and fails the breathalizer goes to jail? This recently happened to a friend of mine. He has also told me stories of how other people (in some alcohol class he has to take) were "caught" by law enforcement when it was clear that they were not any danger to themselves or others. :mad:

The field sobriety test is subjective. All it's doing is giving the police enough time to watch you and give you a few minutes to clear out things that will give you a false reading that is too high (spray breath fresheners will shoot your BAC level sky high for a couple of minutes). The breathalizer (or blood test) is the objective measure of your fitness to drive. In most states it is usually set a .08 (some are still .10). This is pretty well know. And there are guidelines on how much you can drink in how much time for the average person at a certain weight (if you still insist on driving). Personally, I think if you drink, get a friend to drive you home or take a cab.

As for the alcohol class, I have no doubt that most of them felt they were no threat to anyone else. They never do until someone dies (and it's almost never the person drinking).

[homercles]

Originally posted by ductonius
You are of the opinion that as long as you can fake your way through a sobriety test, it should be legal to operating a motorvehicle.

Others, particularly the courts, are of the opinion that if you have above X% in your blood, you should not drive.

In a test of your opinoin vs theirs, you'll loose.

The field sobriety test is DESIGNED to test ones ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (i dont know whats up with your friend though, Dread. That is certainly a rarity). If someone passes the test they are not "faking their way through" it is a DIRECT measure of their current physical capabilities. If someones physical capabilites after a few drinks are identical to anothers when sober how is that "faking?"

[RandBlade]

Any sobriety test you make can be faked. Fact of the matter is you shouldn't drink and drive, it is not just your life you put at risk but innocents die, mostly killed by drivers who could 'handle' it. Do not drink and drive, its that simple. Anyone who does I have no sympathy for whatsoever.

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
As probably this forums biggest drunk I hereby say:

If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot. I hope you get arrested and lose your licence before someone else loses their life.

I never said i drive after a few drinks because i am aware of the fact that the laws are profoundly biased, but thanks for the vote of encouragement ya schmuck :sour:

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
I never said i drive after a few drinks because i am aware of the fact that the laws are profoundly biased, but thanks for the vote of encouragement ya schmuck :sour: No need to get aggressive, it wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at anyone and everyone, I say the exact same thing this issue gets brought up.

There is no reason to legalise drink-driving, no sobriety test is acceptable nor ever will be, I know this from personal experience. If you deliberately drink and drive then you deserve to be punished harshly. You seem to believe sobriety tests are an accurate measure and if you can pass one you're OK, well they're not.

If anyone takes the risk of driving when their blood alcohol limit is over the limit then they deserve any sentance they get. Its no where near as bad as what would have happened if an innocent bystander was the one who got unlucky.

Drinking isn't a problem, drink-driving most definitely is.

PS the very fact you said that you don't drink and drive due to laws rather than don't drink and drive because its wrong and could lead to you murdering someone says a lot.

[homercles]

Originally posted by bruinb77
The breathalizer (or blood test) is the objective measure of your fitness to drive.

The breathalizer is NOT an objective measure of ones "fitness to drive." The only thing it shows is how much alcohol one has in his/her blood. Did you even read my post? Im talking about tolerance as a modulating factor in what constitues ones "fitness to drive." It is possible for an individual with a tolerance to alcohol to operate at a normal levels of physical/perceptual capabilities with a noticable amount of alcohol in one's blood.

As for the alcohol class, I have no doubt that most of them felt they were no threat to anyone else. They never do until someone dies (and it's almost never the person drinking).

Jezus man, do all of you believe the propaganda out there? One drink->drive->YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE! Pa*effing*thetic. :sour:

[Loki]

One drink---->You drive---->You're more likely to kill someone. That is a fact.

[RandBlade]

I know a hell of a lot about tolerance, I can drink about 4 times as much as I did a few years ago, I always drink much more than the most I would have 3 years ago. And I still say so f*cking what?

So what if a tiny, tiny minority could possibly be safe over 80mg/100? So f*cking what? Its not worth taking that risk with other peoples lives. The vast, vast majority of people (even those who're highly tolerant) can't.

And the other point is that everyone has different days. I can drink a little on one day and be pissed surprisingly quickly, other days I can drink all evening and not that get drunk. Everyone is like that, normally its certain factors (when you ate and how much, how healthy you are at the time etc), compounded by the fact that by the point that you can tell you're in no state to drive you are well, well past the point where you can't mean that it is not an acceptable risk.

You think drunk people who don't recognise that they're drunk should be allowed to drive as they don't think they're that drunk? Ridiculous. Yes a small minority may be safe but it doesn't matter. A minority can handle driving 90mph down a motorway too, yet that's not legal either. In fact that's probably got more people who can safely do it. Why aren't you whining about that?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
One drink---->You drive---->You're more likely to kill someone. That is a fact.

Fine, so what do you think that likelihood is? Here's a profoundly generous estimate: 1.4540e-004

This was based on the number of alcohol related deaths / estimated drunk drivers.

Being a scientist i sure ass hell wouldnt invest any stock in that estimate.

[Loki]

Would you be kind enough to provide a source?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
Would you be kind enough to provide a source?

Damn, sorry.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

[St. Mark]

I'll have to somewhat agree with homercles here, but in a totally roundabout donkey way. :o

I did some "driver's training" a few times that assesses your internal navigation skill and ability to handle a vehicle at high speeds in urban terrain while absolutely bombed. Needless to say, many truths about DWI/DUI were both witnessed and experienced firsthand. However, things were learned about how a person's tolerance for alcohol/substance in many cases disproves the automatic "one drink, one kill" mantra we always hear about.

The only difference here is that for us students, there was an overriding motivation to complete some given objective causing us to focus/adrenalize in order not to fail. You'd be surprised how easy it is for people to sober up quickly when properly motivated.

The casual DWI/DUI driver, of course, is rarely in this state of mind or pressure. Thus the relaxation, diminished responses, and decreased attention span arise due primarily to the lack of concern about the present situation (in addition to the substance itself).

Whether this is related to the so-called "Substance-Induced Learning Syndrome" (you know how some people play pool, throw darts, speak foreign tongues, or read schematics better while influenced because they always do it under that state) I don't really know. Maybe truckers can tell us...

And so overall, IMO, it doesn't hurt and only helps to go overboard in this case and not drink at all before driving. People are always going to make mistakes when driving under normal circumstances but not imbibing alcohol beforehand is a completely preventable measure. Just because I know I can handle a loaded weapon safely doesn't mean I have to point it at people with the confidence I won't accidently harm them.

But officer, the bullet didn't hit anybody... :o

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
Damn, sorry.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

1. During 2001, 17,448 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 41% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2002a).

2. Approximately 1.5 million drivers were arrested in 2000 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s just over 1% of the estimated 120 million or more episodes of impaired driving that occur among U.S. adults each year (NHTSA 2001a).

While the second fact does show that people who are drunk are not likely to commit an accident, you should also look at the first first which shows that 2/5 of all traffic accidents were alcohol related. No alcohol=40% less accidents

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
And the other point is that everyone has different days. I can drink a little on one day and be pissed surprisingly quickly, other days I can drink all evening and not that get drunk. Everyone is like that, normally its certain factors (when you ate and how much, how healthy you are at the time etc), compounded by the fact that by the point that you can tell you're in no state to drive you are well, well past the point where you can't mean that it is not an acceptable risk.

You think drunk people who don't recognise that they're drunk should be allowed to drive as they don't think they're that drunk? Ridiculous. Yes a small minority may be safe but it doesn't matter. A minority can handle driving 90mph down a motorway too, yet that's not legal either. In fact that's probably got more people who can safely do it. Why aren't you whining about that?

No you have totally misunderstood my point. If youre impaired go to jail, do not pass go. However, if you are not impaired but have a BAC > 0 you are clearly fine to operate a motor vehicle.

Field sobriety tests are actually objective. Things like jerk nystagmus while doing a smooth pursuit are not "fakeable," among other tests. Law enforcement went to BAC because people were beating their convictions. However, it is now standard issue to equip cop cars with cameras. So i say leave it up to the video rather than some arbitrary BAC level that does not reflect impairment.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by homercles
The field sobriety test is DESIGNED to test ones ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (i dont know whats up with your friend though, Dread. That is certainly a rarity). If someone passes the test they are not "faking their way through" it is a DIRECT measure of their current physical capabilities. If someones physical capabilites after a few drinks are identical to anothers when sober how is that "faking?"

Field sobriety tests can be faked the same way any other test can be faked: Knowing the demands of it beforehand and then compensating to skew the results one way or another.

Practicing walking straight while drunk will allow you to walk perfectly straight while drunk. Yes, really, your mind and body will adapt to the intoxication and you will be able to.

The same goes for the "touch your nose while saying the ABC's" tests, if you practice, or even do motions similar while drunk before, your body and mind will adapt and know what to do even without you thinkingin about it.

Originally posted by homercles
No you have totally misunderstood my point. If youre impaired go to jail, do not pass go. However, if you are not impaired but have a BAC > 0 you are clearly fine to operate a motor vehicle.

There is no such thing as impared vs non-impared, only levels of imparement.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
1. During 2001, 17,448 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 41% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2002a).

2. Approximately 1.5 million drivers were arrested in 2000 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s just over 1% of the estimated 120 million or more episodes of impaired driving that occur among U.S. adults each year (NHTSA 2001a).

While the second fact does show that people who are drunk are not likely to commit an accident, you should also look at the first first which shows that 2/5 of all traffic accidents were alcohol related. No alcohol=40% less accidents

Your point was one drink -> one death. I showed you statistics that contradict your "observation."

Also, no alcohol = 40% fewer "alcohol related" deaths. Not all of which are "innocent" victims. Most im sure, are drunk driver slamming into telephone pole.

Also, "Sleepiness is one of the major causes of accidents, after alcohol." So why isnt sleepy driving vilified? In fact, impairment of a sleepy driver can be identical to that of one impaired by alcohol. (source (http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/23032001/feature.htm)). WHere are the MADD (mothers against drowsy driving) groups coming up with commercials that portray sleepy drivers as devils and villans?

[Loki]

Sleeping behind the wheel is usually involuntary. Drinking is voluntary. Though you can get a ticket for falling asleep while drining. I think it all comes down to intent. Drinking while knowing that you're more likely to cause an accident is intentional. Falling asleep is not usually intentional.

[homercles]

Originally posted by ductonius
Field sobriety tests can be faked the same way any other test can be faked: Knowing the demands of it beforehand and then compensating to skew the results one way or another.

I already addressed this in a previous post. Things like jerk nystagmus while doing a smooth pursuit among other tests are simply not "fakeable" regardless of how much you practice.

There is no such thing as impared vs non-impared, only levels of imparement.

What are you talking about? If youre not impaired youre not impaired. WHatever, im not interested in splitting hairs on this one.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
Sleeping behind the wheel is usually involuntary. Drinking is voluntary. Though you can get a ticket for falling asleep while drining. I think it all comes down to intent. Drinking while knowing that you're more likely to cause an accident is intentional. Falling asleep is not usually intentional.

It is not involuntary. If youre drowsy pull over, grab some coffee, slap yourself in the face, whatever. Are you suggesting that you cant tell when youre drowsy or starting to fall asleep?

[St. Mark]

Originally posted by homercles
So why isnt sleepy driving vilified?

If they ever invent a roadside device that can measure how much sleep a pulled-over person had, I'm sure the government will set a legal "Sleep Acquired Content" level. :o

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
It is not involuntary. If youre drowsy pull over, grab some coffee, slap yourself in the face, whatever. Are you suggesting that you cant tell when youre drowsy or starting to fall asleep?

Not always. And since there really is no way to test whether you knew or not, it would not be appropriate to give an overly harsh punishment.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
Not always.

Wha....? Care to explain?


StMark: Ha! True. The problem with criminalizing sleeping at the wheel is that getting pulled over is usually sufficient to cause a surge of epi...."who was sleeping officer? Me, lord no. Was i sleeping, well i never sleep, well, i mean i sleep in my bed but most certianly not driving down the road, so was i sleeping is that what you asked?" :D

[Loki]

Originally posted by homercles
Wha....? Care to explain?

If you're tired (or stressed) enough, you can fall asleep without knowing that you're falling asleep.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by homercles
Things like jerk nystagmus while doing a smooth pursuit among other tests are simply not "fakeable" regardless of how much you practice.

Nystagmuses are cased by a malfunction of the brain either through some injury or, as you have pointed out, intoxication.

However, because they involve disfunction of otherwise voluntary motor functions, it can be practiced and faked. Sorry.

Originally posted by homercles

What are you talking about? If youre not impaired youre not impaired. WHatever, im not interested in splitting hairs on this one.

You obvioulsy have abosolutly no idea how chemicals affect the human nervous system.

[RandBlade]

There is one thing to say about having legal levels set to 0.08% though: Its way to high already. We have it at 80mg/100 too, its too high. In Australia (a far more drink friendly nation than the States) the legal level is 0.05% - that is also where I got the saying If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot from, from a truly wonderfully shocking set of TV ads series. I'm sure what you're whining about pales into insignificance to these shockingly brutal images, which is what's needed to get into peoples thick skulls that drinking and driving is not acceptable. The fact you believe that 'only' 42% of American road fatalities are due to alcohol means you can allow people to drink more is ridiculous.

As well as lowering the limit to 0.05% and introducing genuinely schocking ads there are other things that could be done. Blood alcohol tests most definitely should be compulsory after each accident, I find it hard to believe they're not already.

Fourthly breathalyser tests should be much more routine, cops should pull people over at random and breathlyse them. Especially late at night and in particular at the end of the year.

Most of those 4 things are very basic and simple things to do, villanising alcohol is not right, raising alcohol duties won't help, its not average drinkers that the problem and that's what gets mistakenly targetted in the US. Drink-driving is totally unacceptable and that is what should get targetted.

Finally I don't know about the States but here at least drozy driving is campaigned against very loudly, very regularly, with many adverts on TV about it and lots of signs on the motorway telling you to pull over if tired.

[Jeeks]

Funny I saw this topic, as my cousin just got arrested for Driving while intoxicated last night. His sister & mom are blaming MY sister for letting him, even tho she couldn't stop him. My sister and his used to be best of friends (and cousins) but now are enemys. OT: My mom's been in jail for 6 months now for meth. I know first hand, you drink, or do any other type of drug, and drive, you DO lose.

And, no, this is not a joke or exageration(sp?)

[Azariel]

Originally posted by homercles
Fine, so what do you think that likelihood is? Here's a profoundly generous estimate: 1.4540e-004

This was based on the number of alcohol related deaths / estimated drunk drivers.

Being a scientist i sure ass hell wouldnt invest any stock in that estimate.

Well, i don't know where you got this numbers. But i'll take them as correct until proven otherwise.

Let's see, that's ~ 3 deaths per twenty thousand times you consume one drink and drive.

Or to say otherwise, for every twenty thousand people who drive after getting one drink, three people will die. I'd say that fully justifies a law to prohibit dinking and driving.

[RandBlade]

Having just one drink won't put you over the limit, but I still won't drive after just one even. There is no need at all to drink and drive, not a single excuse for it.

I have driven once in my life with alcohol in my system. It was probably so much alcohol in fact that I might have been given a jail term had I got caught I suspect I could have been that much over the limit. What happened was I started drinking at 8pm, just planning to have one drink that night and not go out. That one drink ended up being so much more and I stopped drinking at around 8am (I later estimated that during those 12 hours I may have had upto 50 units of various drinks, equivalent of around 25 pints of beer or 1.25 Litres of Vodka). Woke up in the morning and had to go to work, I was meant to go at 10 but woke up at 11:30. Got a quick shower and ran off into the car and drove off. I don't suffer from hangovers and you make the mistake of thinking that in the morning you're fine, but I soon realised I wasn't. I could walk and talk normally, could have passed any sobriety test, but I was still drunk. I pulled over straight away (having driven around 300 yards) and walked the rest of the way.

Learnt an important lesson that day, not only don't drink then drive, but be incredibly careful driving the next day even. Now I won't get really drunk in the evening if I'm planning to drive in the morning, and if I was drunk the night before I won't drive until I've been awake for quite a while and am certain its out of the system.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
Your point was one drink -> one death. I showed you statistics that contradict your "observation."

Also, no alcohol = 40% fewer "alcohol related" deaths. Not all of which are "innocent" victims. Most im sure, are drunk driver slamming into telephone pole.

Also, "Sleepiness is one of the major causes of accidents, after alcohol." So why isnt sleepy driving vilified? In fact, impairment of a sleepy driver can be identical to that of one impaired by alcohol. (source (http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/23032001/feature.htm)). WHere are the MADD (mothers against drowsy driving) groups coming up with commercials that portray sleepy drivers as devils and villans?

Why is this such a crusade for you, Cles? You're sounding more and more irrational. That's a natural response when everyone keeps disagreeing with you, but all it will do is make even more people disagree with you. Being sleepy is not a deliberate act, being drunk is.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles

What are you talking about? If youre not impaired youre not impaired. WHatever, im not interested in splitting hairs on this one.

What a load of bull****. Alchohol is a mind-altering chemical. The first swallow, and you've already become impaired *though in such a minor way that it reveal any macro effects* This is true even if you've developed a tolerance for alcohol. It will be even more minor, but it will be there. Being mildly "buzzed" is a level of impairment, Cles, your brain is no longer functioning in the normal fashion.

Oh, and Cles. Try to remember that the problems with driving drunk aren't just a matter of reaction times, and physical impairment. There's impairment of judgement, too, which will lead to deliberately unsafe driving.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by RandBlade

Fourthly breathalyser tests should be much more routine, cops should pull people over at random and breathlyse them. Especially late at night and in particular at the end of the year.

Can't make it random in the US, it violates the search and seizure clause of the Constitution. Cops need a reason to pull you over. *they can find reasons, I've heard of them saying a sticker in the back-window looked too high, so that it might be an obstruction of view (it was way down in the lower-right corner), but they still need a reason*

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by homercles
The breathalizer is NOT an objective measure of ones "fitness to drive." The only thing it shows is how much alcohol one has in his/her blood. Did you even read my post? Im talking about tolerance as a modulating factor in what constitues ones "fitness to drive." It is possible for an individual with a tolerance to alcohol to operate at a normal levels of physical/perceptual capabilities with a noticable amount of alcohol in one's blood.



Jezus man, do all of you believe the propaganda out there? One drink->drive->YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE! Pa*effing*thetic. :sour:

But it is. It is well know that the higher BAC leads to higher rate of accidents (but I'm sure you think that's propoganda). Now the exact level is debateable, but society has set up .08 as that level in most states. I know I'im not drunk at that level, but I know my reaction time is not as good. Tolerance to alcohol is just another excuse to say I drink alot and nothing ever happend to me before so it won't happen again. Until it does.

As for the propaganda, you must be of the theory that if you can walk you can drive. And I didn't say one drink--drive--and you'll kill someone. I mentioned the people in the alcohol class did not feel like a threat. Their BAC level would NOT be at .08 after one drink. I would have to assume if they are male and about 170lbs, that they had at least 3 beers in 1 hour to reach that level (if they were there longer, add about a beer per hour). And in that case, they are a threat. They just got lucky that time.

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by homercles
Fine, so what do you think that likelihood is? Here's a profoundly generous estimate: 1.4540e-004

This was based on the number of alcohol related deaths / estimated drunk drivers.

Being a scientist i sure ass hell wouldnt invest any stock in that estimate.

LOL, you're kidding right? You actually are using that as a source for defense???

First, let's look at that number. It's .014%. Seems nice and low. That translate into 17,448 deaths due to alcohol. That is 41% of all auto related deaths. That is pretty significant number.

Since you said you're a scientist, I'll ask you this. You are building something (a bridge, a house, a rocket, or whatever). You have a .014% failure rate or you and your family dies. And in your tests, you have found a single cause that causes it to fail 41%. Do you fix that problem which will still save money? (And a 0.014% catostrophic fail rate is HIGH).

Lastly, the .014% rate is LOW. It only refers to death/drunk driver. It ignores accidents and injuries. Please don't delude yourself with numbers. As a scientist, you should know better than to twist the numbers like that to make them look more innocent than they are.

Edit: Source for the numbers in the message above

[Steve_Shapiro]

So since you people keep on bringing up the BAC issue, would it be bad for me to drink say... a Zima and then drive after that?:p

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
So since you people keep on bringing up the BAC issue, would it be bad for me to drink say... a Zima and then drive after that?:p

It would be terrible...to drink a Zima :p

[Zachai_Draegohart]

Wow, I didn't realise that other countries had higher limits for their BAC, it is actually rather interesting I guess. In Australia there are multiple laws that can be broken depending on what you've done. For example, a DUI simply means that the officers on the scene believe that your current state makes you unfit to drive, whether it be due to alcohol, dope, sleeping pills, (insert any other drug here). There is also a charge for exceeding the 0.05 limit that the government have established.

As Rand mentioned we have a fair bit of anti-'drink-driving' advertising, we also have a whole bunch of stuff about not driving while tired, not using mobile phones in cars, not speeding and so on. Random Breath Tests we have, well, any police officer can perform a breath test upon you. From what I recall about alcohol, even small amounts can impare your judgement, not necessarily your motor skills, over-taking that a road train at 140Kmph when you're not meant to generally wouldn't strike one as a good idea, but, after all, you can make it, it isn't like you're going to be the one that has a crash.



Forgive the lack of sense, it's too early.

[homercles]

Ok so far this thread has really just confirmed that most of the people here have some serious issues with reading comprehension. The folks that have understood my reasoning (RB, Uber, St.Mark, & Obispo :up: ) get my Official Seal of Reading Comprehension Approval (tm). For the rest of you:

1). I am NOT advocating drunk driving.

2). I am NOT suggesting that drunk driving should be legal.

3). I am NOT suggesting that drunk driving fatalities are a good thing.

4). I am NOT trying to say that something should not be done about drink driving and drunk driving related fatalities.

5). I am NOT suggesting that consumption of alcohol does not lead to impairment.

6). I am NOT claiming that drivers who are clearly impaired should not be taken off the road.

Heres what i am trying to say:

1). Levels of "impairment" can not be determined by BAC. THis is not intended to imply that higher levels dont mean more impairment--they do. But one mans puking behaviour at 0.1 is another's "zone of normal functioning" if tolerance is considered.

2). Levels of impairment can be objectively measured via sobriety tests that, contrary to some opinions here, are NOT fakeable. The current SFST was validated at .10 BAC. (source (http://dwidata.org/enforce/sobriety_test.cfm)).

3). If an individual passes the sobriety test, and as a result is capable of operating a vehicle safely, there should be no other inqury. Why is this argument so difficult for people to comprehend?

4). Passing the roadside sobriety test means that one is no more impaired than some jacka$$ who is not paying attention. Should people go to jail and pay huge fines for not paying attention?


I would also like to point out that "alcohol related" is NOT "alcohol caused." Thus, all numbers EVER reported on this topic will be inflated as a result.


Man, i need a drink.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles

2). Levels of impairment can be objectively measured via sobriety tests that, contrary to some opinions here, are NOT fakeable. The current SFST was validated at .10 BAC. (source (http://dwidata.org/enforce/sobriety_test.cfm)).


Cles, you not only need to measure objectively, you need to interpret objectively. The BAC allows you to do that *it's a blanket, and like all blankets is a generalization, and inaccurate in a definite percentage of samples, but it doesn't exactly give much that needs to be interpreted*

[homercles]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Cles, you not only need to measure objectively, you need to interpret objectively. The BAC allows you to do that *it's a blanket, and like all blankets is a generalization, and inaccurate in a definite percentage of samples, but it doesn't exactly give much that needs to be interpreted*

This is why using BAC is fundamentally flawed, i have said it before and have to say it again, BAC does not accurately reflect ones level of impairment. And again, BAC is NOT an objective measure of impairment. Objective interpretation is easily accomplished by an increase in sampling (eg. the jury in court room looking at the video of a field test or more cops on the scene). The field sobriety test is litmus with respect to tolerance and impairment. BAC is arbitrary, inaccurate, and simply flawed in the same respect. To make matters worse, most convictions are based on the idea that this is not the case. Hence wording such as 2x the "legal limit."

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
To make matters worse, most convictions are based on the idea that this is not the case. Hence wording such as 2x the "legal limit."

Inaccurate. Convictions are based on the law. If the method used by the law measures impairment, then the convictions are being based on it. If the method being used is not based on impairment *as you assert* then they're not being convicted for being impaired and driving, they're being convicted for driving while in violation of the legal limit of alchohol in the bloodstream. You claim that impairment can be objectively measured by field sobriety tests, and that BAC can't do so, others are claiming the reverse. And both of you are commiting the grevious sin of making claims without support. Cles, rather than ranting at everyone, why haven't you been providing the evidence to back up your claim?

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by homercles
Ok so far this thread has really just confirmed that most of the people here have some serious issues with reading comprehension. The folks that have understood my reasoning (RB, Uber, St.Mark, & Obispo :up: ) get my Official Seal of Reading Comprehension Approval (tm). For the rest of you:

1). I am NOT advocating drunk driving.

2). I am NOT suggesting that drunk driving should be legal.

3). I am NOT suggesting that drunk driving fatalities are a good thing.

4). I am NOT trying to say that something should not be done about drink driving and drunk driving related fatalities.

5). I am NOT suggesting that consumption of alcohol does not lead to impairment.

6). I am NOT claiming that drivers who are clearly impaired should not be taken off the road.

Heres what i am trying to say:

1). Levels of "impairment" can not be determined by BAC. THis is not intended to imply that higher levels dont mean more impairment--they do. But one mans puking behaviour at 0.1 is another's "zone of normal functioning" if tolerance is considered.

2). Levels of impairment can be objectively measured via sobriety tests that, contrary to some opinions here, are NOT fakeable. The current SFST was validated at .10 BAC. (source (http://dwidata.org/enforce/sobriety_test.cfm)).

3). If an individual passes the sobriety test, and as a result is capable of operating a vehicle safely, there should be no other inqury. Why is this argument so difficult for people to comprehend?

4). Passing the roadside sobriety test means that one is no more impaired than some jacka$$ who is not paying attention. Should people go to jail and pay huge fines for not paying attention?


I would also like to point out that "alcohol related" is NOT "alcohol caused." Thus, all numbers EVER reported on this topic will be inflated as a result.


Man, i need a drink.

That is true. You never directly said those thing above. But your arguements indirectly supports that position. You take away BAC, you are now have removed evidence for a conviction. Now, you are forced to interpret video without knowing the full context of what is happening.

Also true you never said that drunk driving fatalities are bad, but you suggested it was insignificant. I completely disagree with that statement as with the statement that "alcohol related" is not "alchohol caused". I really doubt there are large numbers of people completely sober having an accident with people that are drinking.

You do seem to be suggesting that alcohol does not impare you until certain levels. You mainly keep talking of a person's alcohol tolerance. But it does affect you slightly once it starts being processed into the bloodstream and gets more pronounced as you drink more.

You're fifth statement makes the least sense. You say that you are not against taking people who are clearly impared off the road. But there is no measure for that except what has been passed by law. What is "clearly" impared? How do you define that? That's why they have a BAC limit. It takes the arbitrary judgement out of it. Personally, I do think it should be higher than .08, but that is what the law is and you live by it or pay the consequences.

And as I said before, the field sobriety test isn't meant to take the place of the BAC. It is there to give the police time to observe you and to make sure they get an accurate breathalizer from you.

And lastly, if you kill someone and it was due to you not paying attention (cell phone, dozing off, whatever), you will get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Unless you run away, that still might be hard to prove (no hard proof out there most of the time). That's why you won't see that happen as often and that's what will happen if you get rid of BAC. Because without a MEASURABLE limit, it's all subjective.

[Invisible]

I didn't read all the posts here but I know you can get charged with impaired driving simply because you are very sleepy. That's not criminalizing the innocent, it's just making sure the roads are safe. Besides, you know they won't use that to charge someone. They'll give them a warning or whatever.

[Zachai_Draegohart]

Originally posted by homercles
Should people go to jail and pay huge fines for not paying attention?
[/B]

Yes, they should.

[Nessus]

Originally posted by Zachai_Draegohart
Yes, they should.

Jail is too harsh. But a small fine would do the trick just fine.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by homercles
3). If an individual passes the sobriety test, and as a result is capable of operating a vehicle safely, there should be no other inqury. Why is this argument so difficult for people to comprehend?

4). Passing the roadside sobriety test means that one is no more impaired than some jacka$$ who is not paying attention. Should people go to jail and pay huge fines for not paying attention?

That's a big assumption there: if a person passes a sobriety test, they are able to drive. A sobriety test only proves that someone is able to move their arms, legs, eyes, etc. It's a test to make sure that the brain can still control the body. And we all know that just because a brain can control the body doesn't make a person fit for anything. A sobriety test does not rate anyone's ability to pay attention or make rational decisions, which are key to driving.

Yet it is known that alchohol disrupts rational thinking and for lots of people just makes them want to doze off or forget about things. That's why people drink in the first place.

[RandBlade]

Alcohol hits you from the first drink onwards.

You haven't addressed my point homercles. So what if an individual could possibly drive over a blood alcohol level of .08? The law needs a lowest common denominator, not a highest one. I have more trust in the BAC than any test, the BAC is scientific, its not so subjective.

If you remove the breathalyser then people will think its OK to drive so long as they think they're still capable. As I said, the point at which people recognise they're incapable is way too late already. Remove the BAC and I'd expect an increase in drink-drivers. There is not a single reason to need to drive with a BAC over .08, in fact I'd rather it be .05. I am more tolerant than average, under your logic its OK for me to drink a bit then drive, but I won't, its not true. Yes, different people get affected differently, but that's not important. We need a simple measure of protection and BAC is very good at that.

Furthermore the limit should be set to below the point of incapability. You don't suddenly get hit when you drink, its a progression, and the limit should have a margin of error and that should be to err on the side of caution.

Too many die due to drink driving, there's no need for it whatsoever and you still haven't named one reason why we should remove the BAC. So what if its not perfect? Its not meant to measure when you're incapable, its meant to set a limit that you shouldn't drive over and that limit should be significantly below incapability.

[Uber_olafsun]

You guys do realize that a sobriety test is not just walking a straight line and such. There are other things such as eye twitching when you are following thier finger. It is not a walk in a striaght line and such. I have a few cop friends that will do a test after we were drinking at a party at the house. No one passed that had been drinking. As for the only getting a fine part. I want you to think of what you would want if that person was drunk and hit you or a family member with their car.

[RandBlade]

My main concern with removing BAC is having more people drink and drive. Even if they couldn't get through a sobriety test, if they think they can pass it then that may lead to them driving when previously they were afraid of getting caught with blood in his system, thus more people will die each year.

Secondly the problem with drink driving isn't a loss of control, its a loss of judgement. That goes first and thats the most serious, sobriety tests are much more based on whether you've still got your motor functions.

[homercles]

originally posted by bruinb
Also true you never said that drunk driving fatalities are bad, but you suggested it was insignificant. I completely disagree with that statement as with the statement that "alcohol related" is not "alchohol caused". I really doubt there are large numbers of people completely sober having an accident with people that are drinking.

Ah yes, the perfect quote for the following tip:

"Read the posts relevant to the thread BEFORE replying."

I posted those numbers NOT to suggest they are insignificant but rather to quell the riduculous notion that "one drink->drive->kill someone" is based in fact. Its not. And its pathetic that this is a common notion. Again the probability of that actually happening is 1.4540e-004!!!

originally posted by Uber
[with reference to using BAC] It is called a deterant. [also suggested by RB]

Nonsense. Its estimated that 120 million americans drive drunk each year. I would like to suggest that a policy of education coupled with an OBJECTIVE measure of IMPAIRMENT would be a far stronger deterrant than trumped up scare tactics. As Uber mentioned before (and myself numerous times), the field sobriety test accurately measures impairment, as no one at the party actually passed the thing. Rather than millions being spent on scare tactics and unjust legislation, why not spend that money to EDUCATE folks about exactly what impairment is. If anything this thread has reinforced my notion that the general public has no *effing* clue what impairment actually means. Perhaps thats why there are so many impaired drivers on the road. Educating folks to recognize when their impaired (yes, physically and decisionally) and unable to operate a vehicle safely would allow them to make the decision--rather than treating the populace as children incapable of doing anything without guidance.

originally posted by RB
You haven't addressed my point homercles. So what if an individual could possibly drive over a blood alcohol level of .08? The law needs a lowest common denominator, not a highest one. I have more trust in the BAC than any test, the BAC is scientific, its not so subjective.

Its only scientific in the sense that it measures the level of alcohol in ones blood. How the level of alcohol in one's blood relates to impairment is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE. You said it yourself (iirc) that one day you can drink alot, and another day with a few drinks youre done. Do you realize that your BAC increases with more drinks in the exact same manner on BOTH days? THe roadside sobriety test measures impairment--not BAC--for this reason. It was developed before the breathalizer, blood test, and video in cop cars were even available. And its now used as an easy way to convict innocent (i.e. NON-IMPAIRED) folks and generate revenue for the city/state/alcohol classes/whatever.

originally posted by fuzzy
Inaccurate. Convictions are based on the law. If the method used by the law measures impairment, then the convictions are being based on it. If the method being used is not based on impairment *as you assert* then they're not being convicted for being impaired and driving, they're being convicted for driving while in violation of the legal limit of alchohol in the bloodstream.

Convictions based on BAC are based on a law that has decided upon a totally arbitrary BAC as the "legal limit." This is precisely what im questioning (way to go on that whole reading comprehension thing fuzz).

originally fuzz again
You claim that impairment can be objectively measured by field sobriety tests, and that BAC can't do so, others are claiming the reverse. And both of you are commiting the grevious sin of making claims without support. Cles, rather than ranting at everyone, why haven't you been providing the evidence to back up your claim?

Puhlease read my posts before replying, PUHLEASE! I have already posted this, and you have even quoted it (apparently without reading it):

SFST (http://dwidata.org/enforce/sobriety_test.cfm)

Tolerance and alcohol (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa28.htm)

Still want to learn more? Go to PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=PubMed) and search for tolerance acquisition alcohol.

originally posted by RBMy main concern with removing BAC is having more people drink and drive. Even if they couldn't get through a sobriety test, if they think they can pass it then that may lead to them driving when previously they were afraid of getting caught with blood in his system, thus more people will die each year.

Let me ask you Rand, what you think the joint probability is of killing someone and have a BAC <= 0.08? 9%. Ok so now before i get accused of using poor statistics. This is far fewer than observed when some states increased their speed limits (source (http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4780934/19874133.html)). So what does this say? Well, it says that most drivers are idiots (as is most of the populace). Would "scaring" these folks into slowing down reduce the fatality rate--nope. WOuld educating them as to the consequences of their actions--more than likely, yes.

If alcohol primarily affects reaction time, why not outlaw the elderly from driving? As it is common knowledge that RT increases as a function of age

[Loki]

You still haven't responded to the claim that even though a small portion of people who drink end up killing people, they still cause accidents. What is the number of accidents, and not just deaths, from drinking?

And do tell me, what need do you have to drink and drive? Is it really necessary? Is it harming your life?

[homercles]

Originally posted by Loki
You still haven't responded to the claim that even though a small portion of people who drink end up killing people, they still cause accidents. What is the number of accidents, and not just deaths, from drinking?

And do tell me, what need do you have to drink and drive? Is it really necessary? Is it harming your life?

Puhleeze loki, i have addressed this dont be facetious just for the sake of argument. A small number of people kill drivers because they are not paying attention, drowzy, or otherwise just stupid or old. Does that mean there shoud be a nationwide campaign against stupidity in the presence of ignornace?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles

Convictions based on BAC are based on a law that has decided upon a totally arbitrary BAC as the "legal limit." This is precisely what im questioning (way to go on that whole reading comprehension thing fuzz).

For crissake, Cles. My reading was spot on. You were claiming they were being convicted of impairment when they weren't impaired. That's only true if the argument you had been making was, in fact, not the case. Yes, their convictions were based on an arbitrary legal limit *any limit is arbitrary, it's based on something external, not internal* Yes, the claim you were making was arbitrary. What did I object to? Your *false* claim that they were being convicted for being impaired. Is this semantics? Yes, I'd think you would have realized by now that I will jump on such imprecision, when the person *you* are objecting to something you consider to be imprecise. If you are going to object to an imprecise test, I see no reason not to object to your imprecise wording.

Puhlease read my posts before replying, PUHLEASE! I have already posted this, and you have even quoted it (apparently without reading it):

SFST (http://dwidata.org/enforce/sobriety_test.cfm)

Tolerance and alcohol (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa28.htm)

Still want to learn more? Go to PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=PubMed) and search for tolerance acquisition alcohol.

Strangely enough, I did read your posts, and I did read your links. For example, your first link talks about the objectivity of SFST. What is it being calibrated to? The BAC. Maybe you should reread your link? Thank you for the second link on tolerance. It confirmed what I already knew. What it did not confirm, what nothing you're posted has made any claim about, is SFST being a better test than BAC. In fact, your first link undermines that claim. Try again, Cles, and with less exasperation this time. It's making you lax in your choice of citations, that's not good for the case you're trying to make.

WOuld educating them as to the consequences of their actions--more than likely, yes.

Cles, people ARE educated about the consequences. They may not know all the scientific details, but those aren't necessary. They can grasp quite well that when their judgement and ability is impaired, they're at risk. Yet they still do it. I know that people like you, who are well-educated, and know all the risks, don't understand why they still do it, and thus assume it's because they don't know better. You're wrong. They do know better, yet they do it anyway. Why? Read my response to the last quote.

If alcohol primarily affects reaction time, why not outlaw the elderly from driving? As it is common knowledge that RT increases as a function of age

Actually, what the people on here have repeatedly said *and which you have ignored every time someone mentions it, including Rand and I* is that it affects JUDGEMENT. Of course, since you can't really get a picture of someone's judgement from a couple of physiological tests, you've been ignoring that, haven't you?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
Puhleeze loki, i have addressed this dont be facetious just for the sake of argument. A small number of people kill drivers because they are not paying attention, drowzy, or otherwise just stupid or old. Does that mean there shoud be a nationwide campaign against stupidity in the presence of ignornace?

You aren't answering his questions, you're raising a straw man, and employing the ad hominem fallacy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Originally posted by homercles
Puhleeze loki, i have addressed this dont be facetious just for the sake of argument. A small number of people kill drivers because they are not paying attention, drowzy, or otherwise just stupid or old. Does that mean there shoud be a nationwide campaign against stupidity in the presence of ignornace?
Its very hard to make laws against people being stupid (since it is hard for them (us?) to change that)

It's easy NOT to drink and drive.

And by all means, answer Loki's Q.
apologies for the double request, just read LF's post

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
Nonsense. Its estimated that 120 million americans drive drunk each year. And that's 120 million too many.
would like to suggest that a policy of education coupled with an OBJECTIVE measure of IMPAIRMENT would be a far stronger deterrant than trumped up scare tactics. As Uber mentioned before (and myself numerous times), the field sobriety test accurately measures impairment, as no one at the party actually passed the thing.Does it measure impairment of judgement?
Rather than millions being spent on scare tactics and unjust legislation, why not spend that money to EDUCATE folks about exactly what impairment is. If anything this thread has reinforced my notion that the general public has no *effing* clue what impairment actually means. Perhaps thats why there are so many impaired drivers on the road. Educating folks to recognize when their impaired (yes, physically and decisionally) and unable to operate a vehicle safely would allow them to make the decision--rather than treating the populace as children incapable of doing anything without guidance.You have not shown a single thing in this thread to say that any test is better than alcohol levels in objectively measuring the impairment of judgement. As I have repeatedly said and you have repeatedly ignored, a loss of judgement goes before a loss of motor control (bodily functions) and a loss of judgement can be a leading cause of crashes. Furthermore one of the points of being drunk is that you lose your judgement and thus think you are fit to drive when you're not. As I keep repeatedly saying and you keep repeatedly driving, the point at which people recognise they're too drunk to drive is too often well past the point which they are. Same reason as many people at parties can be adamant that they're not drunk, or not that drunk, when swaying from side to side.
Its only scientific in the sense that it measures the level of alcohol in ones blood. How the level of alcohol in one's blood relates to impairment is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE. You said it yourself (iirc) that one day you can drink alot, and another day with a few drinks youre done. Do you realize that your BAC increases with more drinks in the exact same manner on BOTH days? THe roadside sobriety test measures impairment--not BAC--for this reason. It was developed before the breathalizer, blood test, and video in cop cars were even available. And its now used as an easy way to convict innocent (i.e. NON-IMPAIRED) folks and generate revenue for the city/state/alcohol classes/whatever.Drink-drivers are not innocent. Everyone over 0.08% is guilty, the law is set in stone and they broke it, fairly clear cut here. I have no sympathy for them. Murdered (and I do consider it to be murder, or manslaughter more likely) people ran over or crashed into are innocent. And every single drink affects you somewhat, you have not shown anything to say its not true (which is fairly obvious since it would be impossible as what I'm saying is true hence why you're ignoring it). Furthermore you still haven't addressed my point of so what if a small minority of people can drive over 0.08, why should that risk be taken by the State? I challenge you show a single link saying that someone could have a blood-alcohol level over 0.08 and not be affected at all. Furthermore as I have said the legal limit should rightly be below the point of impairment, not the point of impairment, to allow for margin of error and the fact you have to lean on the side of caution.

As I got my licence less than 3 years ago my personal legal limit until September when I've been then had my full licence for 3 years is 0%. I'm not allowed a single bit of alcohol in my blood when driving. I have no problem with that. New drivers already have a lack of experience and thus a lack of judgement, further loss of judgement even by a slight amount is thus not considered acceptable, and even having 0.04% let alone 0.08% affects your judgement.
Let me ask you Rand, what you think the joint probability is of killing someone and have a BAC <= 0.08? 9%. Ok so now before i get accused of using poor statistics. This is far fewer than observed when some states increased their speed limits (source (http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4780934/19874133.html)). So what does this say? Well, it says that most drivers are idiots (as is most of the populace). Would "scaring" these folks into slowing down reduce the fatality rate--nope. WOuld educating them as to the consequences of their actions--more than likely, yes.Actually yes I do believe scare campaigns work. Problem is the only scare campaign I've seen which is actually scary was by the TAC in Australia, but I know that the TAC campaign ("If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot" with a visible double-entendre on the word bloody) had an impact.
If alcohol primarily affects reaction time, why not outlaw the elderly from driving? As it is common knowledge that RT increases as a function of ageAlready happens in the UK somewhat, quite rightfully. You lose your licence here at the age of 70 and then need to renew it every 5 years by getting (IIRC) both an optician and a doctor to certify that you're fit to drive. My Grandad thus lost his licence on his 70th birthday. I don't think that's strong enough, I think every licence should expire every 10 years and you should have to renew your licence every 10 years (becoming 5 when you hit old age). I don't think its right you can pass your test as a teen and still be driving 50 years later on the same licence and I know of quite a few people who could fail if they had to retake their tests.

Funny that all the other points you've mentioned (tiredness, speed, age) already can, should and here at least are targetted as well.

[bruinb77]

Originally posted by homercles
Ah yes, the perfect quote for the following tip:

"Read the posts relevant to the thread BEFORE replying."

I posted those numbers NOT to suggest they are insignificant but rather to quell the riduculous notion that "one drink->drive->kill someone" is based in fact. Its not. And its pathetic that this is a common notion. Again the probability of that actually happening is 1.4540e-004!!!



I suggest you do the same in reading the posts BEFORE replying.

I havn't seen anything that said 1 drink---drive---kill someone. The comments were that 1 drink and driving was more likely to kill someone. I suggest that the probibility is higher than if you were sober.

But I admit to choosing my words poorly in that post. But my point was that those numbers were significant and did support that you were more likely to kill someone while drinking than if you had no drinks at all.

[homercles]

Ahhh yes, back in the game.... :D

Note: replies are chronological rather than in order of importance.

<originally posted by Loki>
*snip*

Damn, my apologies Loki, i thought you comprehened my agrument and were just being facetious. If you understood my argument you would see why this is not a serious Q, sorry about being abrasive, still respect ya bro. ;)

<originally posted by Fussy>
Strangely enough, I did read your posts, and I did read your links. For example, your first link talks about the objectivity of SFST. What is it being calibrated to? The BAC. Maybe you should reread your link? Thank you for the second link on tolerance. It confirmed what I already knew. What it did not confirm, what nothing you're posted has made any claim about, is SFST being a better test than BAC. In fact, your first link undermines that claim. Try again, Cles, and with less exasperation this time. It's making you lax in your choice of citations, that's not good for the case you're trying to make.

The SFST is not "calibrated" against BAC. It was developed and "calibrated" long before blood alcohol tests were even around. It is held up as an example of accuracy with respect to the legal BAC limit. Do you know what "calibration" means? The field sobriety test was developed to test an individual's ability to operate a motor vehicle. If you dont understand the differnce between "field sobriety" and BAC there is no point in continuing this discussion.

That second link was really just intended to shed light upon your ignornance about how tolerance works. Heres a few quotes since you didnt feel like reading:
"Tolerance means that after continued drinking, consumption of a constant amount of alcohol produces a lesser effect or increasing amounts of alcohol are necessary to produce the same effect."
"Because the drinker does not experience significant behavioral impairment as a result of drinking, tolerance means the drinker can drink even more!"

Not to mention that an individuals tolerance can vary from hour to hour, day to day, week to week WITH NO COMSUMPTION AT ALL.


<-- lets take a break and mind reading comprehension -->


So lets summarize:
Tolerance-The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
BAC-blood alcohol content.
Result-As tolerance goes up, one needs a higher BAC level to have the same affect to alcohol. Yes, ALL of them. Shall we continue?

Affects of Alcohol in a Scientifically Sampled Population:
BAC Affect
0.02 Slight mood changes
0.06 Lowered inhibition, impaired judgement, decreased rational decision-making abilities.
0.08 Legally drunk, deterioration of reaction time and control.
0.15 Impaired balance, movement, and coordination. Difficulty standing, walking, talking.
0.20 Decreased pain and sensation. Erratic emotions.
0.30 Diminished reflexes. Semi-consciousness.
0.40 Loss of consciousness. Very limited reflexes. Anesthetic effects.

So which test do you think more accurately measures the affects of alcohol consumption (notice there are no measures of variance?)?

<originally posted by Fussy>
Actually, what the people on here have repeatedly said *and which you have ignored every time someone mentions it, including Rand and I* is that it affects JUDGEMENT. Of course, since you can't really get a picture of someone's judgement from a couple of physiological tests, you've been ignoring that, haven't you?

Uh, no havent ignored. Your lack of comprehension does not mean i ignored it. I hope the above clarifies for you. Take note of what happens at a BAC of ~0.6 +/- 0.1.

<originally posted by Rand>
*snip*

Well, Rand, you show the most signs of actually understanding my argument. And you simply dont agree with that, i can accept that. Furthermore, we are not in disagreement about measuring impaired judgement. I think someone who is too drunk to drive and climbs behind the wheel is showing impaired judgement, i think someone that goes even further and speeds, runs stop signs, or is otherwise not driving wisely is OBVIOUSLY showing impaired judgement.

You mention that the legal limit is "set in stone?" Quite the opposite actually.

<originally posted by BruinBoy>
I havn't seen anything that said 1 drink---drive---kill someone. The comments were that 1 drink and driving was more likely to kill someone. I suggest that the probibility is higher than if you were sober.
Sorry, buddy, again you have shown that you dont read before you reply. I made that comment as a reflection of the propaganda laden ad campains, and folks here, that are buying into that. Sorry, i guess i should have laid down a complete history of the thread for you. :confused:


BTW, Im DONE with this thread UNLESS someone who actually understands my perspective raises an interesting argument.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by homercles
"Because the drinker does not experience significant behavioral impairment as a result of drinking, tolerance means the drinker can drink even more!"

The key word in that quotation is "behavioral". A person with "tolerance" behaves less drunk than they really are and can drink even more until they begin to actually act drunk.

Result-As tolerance goes up, one needs a higher BAC level to have the same affect to alcohol. Yes, ALL of them. Shall we continue?

Affects of Alcohol in a Scientifically Sampled Population:
BAC Affect
0.02 Slight mood changes
0.06 Lowered inhibition, impaired judgement, decreased rational decision-making abilities.
0.08 Legally drunk, deterioration of reaction time and control.
0.15 Impaired balance, movement, and coordination. Difficulty standing, walking, talking.
0.20 Decreased pain and sensation. Erratic emotions.
0.30 Diminished reflexes. Semi-consciousness.
0.40 Loss of consciousness. Very limited reflexes. Anesthetic effects.

So which test do you think more accurately measures the affects of alcohol consumption (notice there are no measures of variance?)?

As has been mentioned over and over again, BAC is relative to body weight and size. Which means that the variance is already accounted for in the persons bodyweight. You've tried to turn the intangible quality of "tolerance" into some kind of medical certainty that you simply have not supported with any direct sources.

BTW, Im DONE with this thread UNLESS someone who actually understands my perspective raises an interesting argument. [/quote]

More people understand your perspective than you think. But both our common sense and your lack of any real sources that directly support your statement is why I don't think I've seen a single person agree with you so far in this thread.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
This is why using BAC is fundamentally flawed, i have said it before and have to say it again, BAC does not accurately reflect ones level of impairment. And again, BAC is NOT an objective measure of impairment. Objective interpretation is easily accomplished by an increase in sampling (eg. the jury in court room looking at the video of a field test or more cops on the scene). The field sobriety test is litmus with respect to tolerance and impairment. BAC is arbitrary, inaccurate, and simply flawed in the same respect. To make matters worse, most convictions are based on the idea that this is not the case. Hence wording such as 2x the "legal limit."

Well along those lines should speed limits be set based on your driving skill? Indy car guys can go faster than those who just got their permit? We use BAC because it is a definate reading. As you said that its arbitrary. Well this isn't. It is a direct you are over the limit go to jail do not pass go.

Also I seem to remember commericals right around holidays and long weekends about people stopping to get rest and not to over do it while driving. They had a guy getting sleepy while driving.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Well along those lines should speed limits be set based on your driving skill? Indy car guys can go faster than those who just got their permit? We use BAC because it is a definate reading. As you said that its arbitrary. Well this isn't. It is a direct you are over the limit go to jail do not pass go.Don't bother Uber, already had this raised myself and by others but homercles selective reading means that like most other points raised here that tears his logic to shreds he's ignoring it. There's no response to make, he's got no response, so he's not bothering. He knows that he can't win against this argument so he's not taking up points like this, hoping that if he ignores them then people might think they were never made.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
The key word in that quotation is "behavioral". A person with "tolerance" behaves less drunk than they really are and can drink even more until they begin to actually act drunk.

Simply not true, thanks for confirming that you dont understand what tolerance is Dread. Behaviour is measured at ALL levels from cellular to physiological to human. Behavouir in this context is meant to indicate all these levels.

Again for the group:
Tolerance-The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.


As has been mentioned over and over again, BAC is relative to body weight and size. Which means that the variance is already accounted for in the persons bodyweight. You've tried to turn the intangible quality of "tolerance" into some kind of medical certainty that you simply have not supported with any direct sources.

Have you not read ANY of the info i have provided? I provided links to Fussy and had hoped others would also use them. Obviously not. :(

More people understand your perspective than you think. But both our common sense and your lack of any real sources that directly support your statement is why I don't think I've seen a single person agree with you so far in this thread.

No, this is not true. There have only been a select few that have made it clear that they actually comprehend my argument--sadly Dread youre not one of 'em. Mind you, this is not a personal attack, i attribute this to my unwillingness to be verbose and my likely poor communication skills.

Additionally, this is also evidence of the fact that (take note Rand) it is futile to argue nonconventional ideologies to a conventional mind. Sad but true...

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Don't bother Uber, already had this raised myself and by others but homercles selective reading means that like most other points raised here that tears his logic to shreds he's ignoring it. There's no response to make, he's got no response, so he's not bothering. He knows that he can't win against this argument so he's not taking up points like this, hoping that if he ignores them then people might think they were never made.

Wha...?

To Uber and Rand: The speeding analogy does not make any sense from my arguments. Im arguing that tolerance is an equalizing factor that is capable of skewing the affects of alcohol to higher BAC levels and that the laws may sometimes unjustly ignore this. A better analogy would be which is safer to drive at higher speeds? A 1972 Honda Civic that has flat tires, bad shocks, burns oil, no brakes, and has bad alignment. Or a 1972 Honda Civic that has been restored (ie. the mechaism of tolerance according to my argument) to mint condition and has brand new tires, shocks, brakes, motor, and suspension? Ya see, the restored Civic has effectively been "equalized" to a new car through "restoration."

Also, Rand i have only ignored arguments which make it clear that the respondent did not understand my argument.

So lets see if you can "tear this logic to shreads":

Tolerance is a medical certainty that varies on an hourly time course in individuals that dont drink AT ALL.

Tolerance is a medical certainty (using your wording here Dread) that is elevated in the regular drinker (which will also vary in the same manner as the abstined drinker--just elevated).

Tolerance reduces ALL the affects of alcohol and thereby skews the BAC required to observe the same affects to higher levels relative to the accepted "standard" (see my previous post about BAC and its subsequent affects).

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
Wha...?

To Uber and Rand: The speeding analogy does not make any sense from my arguments. Im arguing that tolerance is an equalizing factor that is capable of skewing the affects of alcohol to higher BAC levels and that the laws may sometimes unjustly ignore this. A better analogy would be which is safer to drive at higher speeds? A 1972 Honda Civic that has flat tires, bad shocks, burns oil, no brakes, and has bad alignment. Or a 1972 Honda Civic that has been restored (ie. the mechaism of tolerance according to my argument) to mint condition and has brand new tires, shocks, brakes, motor, and suspension? Ya see, the restored Civic has effectively been "equalized" to a new car through "restoration."



Yeah but people don't seem to know what they are driving. Tolerance is not your ability to handle alchohal it is you ability to act like you have not been drinking and come off as being normal. Tolerance from a medical standpoint if you are becoming an alcohalic. You body needs more of it to get the same feeling. It doesn't mean you need more to impare you. Hence a person who has never had a drink could feel like they are buzzed when they have 1 drink and others need 5 beers to feel the same. Both still affect your response time.

I think it is sad you are trying to justify drinking and driving but not trying to justify staying sober when you are behind the wheel.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Yeah but people don't seem to know what they are driving. Tolerance is not your ability to handle alchohal it is you ability to act like you have not been drinking and come off as being normal. Tolerance from a medical standpoint if you are becoming an alcohalic. You body needs more of it to get the same feeling. It doesn't mean you need more to impare you. Hence a person who has never had a drink could feel like they are buzzed when they have 1 drink and others need 5 beers to feel the same. Both still affect your response time.

No this is simply not true. Im really not sure where this misconception came from (well, actually it was likely the puritanical influence, sadly). Trust me on this Uber, tolerance reduces ALL the affects of a drug. This means that the person with a tolerance and a BAC that is perfectly equivalent to said tolerance will have a reaction time that is IDENTICAL to a sober individual.

I think it is sad you are trying to justify drinking and driving but not trying to justify staying sober when you are behind the wheel.


Hmmm, and here i gave you credit in a earlier post for actually comprehending my argument. Damn, im going to have to retract that now. :( Im not trying to justify drinking and driving (i dont do it because of the laws), im wondering why the laws dont recognize that "impairment" is not quantifiable via BAC. And here i thought my last post was clear. :sour: :(

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
No this is simply not true. Im really not sure where this misconception came from (well, actually it was likely the puritanical influence, sadly). Trust me on this Uber, tolerance reduces ALL the affects of a drug. This means that the person with a tolerance and a BAC that is perfectly equivalent to said tolerance will have a reaction time that is IDENTICAL to a sober individual.


Hmmm, and here i gave you credit in a earlier post for actually comprehending my argument. Damn, im going to have to retract that now. :( Im not trying to justify drinking and driving (i dont do it because of the laws), im wondering why the laws dont recognize that "impairment" is not quantifiable via BAC. And here i thought my last post was clear. :sour: :(

Show me one place that says that tolerance reduces all effects of a drug. Also they use BAC is not just an impairment test. It is a test that says according to our laws the average person should have enough impairment to not be able to operate a motro vehicle safely. They do this because the other test is still to judgmental. This is a pass or no pass test.

My question is how long have you been drinking to gain this knowledge? Also I would love to see any test that says people with a tolerance that drink have the same reaction time as those who don't drink. Do you know of any studies done?

[Dreadnaught]

Homericles-- someday you're going to have to accept the fact that you can't just dismiss people who disagree with you as not understanding your point. Otherwise, it's pointless.

Try buying a BAC self-test kit (they can be bought). Figure out how many drinks for you equals .08. Then take the car into an empty parking lot or deserted road with a sober friend who can take over and decide if you are really fit to drive.

[RandBlade]

Homercles the point you're ignoring reletaive to speeding is my question of so what if tolerance means some can drive above 0.08? As many of us have said, many times more can drive and different speeds safer.

If I go onto a road then the speed limit for any road I drive on is set by the road itself. It doesn't matter if I'm a learner, or a professional racind driver, the speed limit is the same. The 'National Speed Limit' in the UK, for motorways and non-urban 2-lane roads is only 70 miles per hour. Its ridiculously slow. Get on a motorway and I bet you the majority of cars are doing above 70mph. The fact that you are a more skilled driver or a better handled car doesn't mean you're legally allowed to drive any faster.

When I was a learner on my L-plates, in a cheap car with no air-bags, power steering, ABS or so many other safety features in other cars(its the car I still drive), I still faced the same limit as experienced drivers in state-of-the-art cars.

The variance between individuals ability to drive at various speeds, with their ability and car taken into account is much wider than the variance on blood alcohol levels. The proportion of drivers who can 'safely' drive over 70 miles per hour is far higher than the proportion of drivers who can drive over a blood level of 0.08 - so why aren't you whining about that? We have a limit on BAC for the same reason as we have a limit on speed.

PS I do believe that in the US the speed limit is an insanely low 55 miles per hour. And I do believe that you're American. Do you think more people could drive over 55, or drive over .08?

The two are directly comparable issues. The laws are not based upon an individuals assessed risk, its based upon quantifiable amounts judged against legal limits and regardless of abililty, your car, 'tolerance' or any other fact, every single individual faces the same speed limit and the same blood alcohol level, for fairly simple reasons.

You've still ignored my challenege (in red, bold, italics and underlined) to give evidence that anyone can drive over 0.08 without being at all affected, but can you give any reason why a BAC limit is worse than a speed limit?

[Internal Damage]

Originally posted by homercles
Lately i have been seeing adverts for "you drink, you drive, you loose," which are profoundly misleading in numerous ways, but primarily in the realm of TOLERANCE. These groups are hell bent on criminalizing a very subjective grey area--that of driving after consuming alcohol. The problem is that this is NOT an area of black-and-whites.

Facts:

"Motor co-ordination shows the most tolerance to alcohol consumption." Hence the reason that numerous people pass the "road side sobriety," and are thus capable of operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner, but fail the BAC test.

"Repeated exposure of the metabolizing system (mainly the liver) to alcohol increases the system's capability and efficiency. As a result, the alcohol is metabolized more quickly and the duration and intensity of the desired effect are considerably reduced. This is called metabolic tolerance" and the reason why BAC is a terrible way of determining ones level of "impairment."

However.....

More than 2x as many fatal highway accidents occur due to people falling asleep at the wheel or simply being inattentive as opposed to driving after consuming.

So why are the innocent in this country being treated as the guilty?

you spew out that stupid bullsh!t now. maybe after one of you close friends is killed by a drunk driver you will change your opinion

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Don't bother Uber, already had this raised myself and by others but homercles selective reading means that like most other points raised here that tears his logic to shreds he's ignoring it. There's no response to make, he's got no response, so he's not bothering. He knows that he can't win against this argument so he's not taking up points like this, hoping that if he ignores them then people might think they were never made.

I don't know why, but it's a habit quite a few of the highly educated who post here have, Alberjohns has always been the prime example for me *from his posts on others boards, not here*

[The Holy One]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
I don't know why, but it's a habit quite a few of the highly educated who post here have, Alberjohns has always been the prime example for me *from his posts on others boards, not here*
I have a very low education and i do it all the time but i don't know any better. :D

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Homericles-- someday you're going to have to accept the fact that you can't just dismiss people who disagree with you as not understanding your point. Otherwise, it's pointless.


That's not entirely fair, Dread. After you've explained your position several times, if people still don't agree with you, what more can you do? The only options are A) they don't understand your point, B) there's room for legitimage disagreement, or C) you're wrong. Cles plainly things that C is not true, and as we're discussing basic effects of alchohol, there doesn't seem to be all that much room for legitimate disagreement.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by RandBlade

PS I do believe that in the US the speed limit is an insanely low 55 miles per hour. And I do believe that you're American. Do you think more people could drive over 55, or drive over .08?


It's up to the states, actually. In Montana, it's generally between 70 and 90 on most major roadways. In CA, it ranges from 55 to 70 depending on the general traffic and the condition of the roads.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
That's not entirely fair, Dread. After you've explained your position several times, if people still don't agree with you, what more can you do? The only options are A) they don't understand your point, B) there's room for legitimage disagreement, or C) you're wrong. Cles plainly things that C is not true, and as we're discussing basic effects of alchohol, there doesn't seem to be all that much room for legitimate disagreement.

"Legitimate disagreement" is a rather fuzzy term (no pun intended). But I think that in this case, most people just plain disagree with him. But instead homercles just maintains that no one understands him, which I think is unfair. There are few arguments out there where one can really claim that people just don't understand the point. The only one I can think of is evolution, in which many anti-evolution people (who may still disagree either way) have a rather false view of what evolution is.

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Homercles the point you're ignoring reletaive to speeding is my question of so what if tolerance means some can drive above 0.08? As many of us have said, many times more can drive and different speeds safer.

No this is not the appropriate analogy. But lets assume it is.

One speeding ticket:
1). License revoked for a year
2). Fine of $1500
3). "Speeding Classes" which the offender pays for ($1000).
4). 60 hours of community service.

Two speeding tickets:
1). License revoked for 2-5 years
2). Fine of $3000-5000
3). More classes to the tune of $5000
4). 30 days in jail.

Three speeding tickets:
1). STATE PRISON (yes, the kind for murders and rapists) for a year....need i continue?

Besides the subpopulation im talking about is probably rather small. As i have said before, an individual that is too drunk to drive but decides to get behind the wheel is impaired. Thus, the people in the subpopulation im talking about are not the ones killing other people, causing accidents, or otherwise raising rasing risk factors.

Additinally, did you know that when usinng the SFST ALONE law inforcement, in a test conducted in 1998, was able to discriminate between above and below 0.08 in 91% of those individuals pulled over? (source (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SFST/introduction.htm))

As for your bold, italicized, red, and underlined statement, tolerance while easily measured is not quantifiable. As such it is not possible to conduct well controlled experiements under such circumstances. However, basesd upon my knowledge (both as a neuroscientist and drinker) i would say that it is entirely possible that one could display ZERO affects of alcohol and have a BAC > 0.08 at a given time when tolerance was rather high. To have a BAC of 0.08 really only requires just over 3 pints in an hour. Would you say youre pissed after a few pints RB?

Q: How effective do you think 0.08 versus 0.10 laws are anyway?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles

Additinally, did you know that when usinng the SFST ALONE law inforcement, in a test conducted in 1998, was able to discriminate between above and below 0.08 in 91% of those individuals pulled over? (source (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SFST/introduction.htm))


Two things, Cles. First of all, I thought you were dropping this, unless new blood posted and showed greater understanding than the rest of us? Two, why do your citations keep referencing BAC as a baseline, if it's not a good measurement? If different alchohol tolerances make BAC no good as a measurement, what does it matter?

I might also add that the section on standardization, in this latest citation, offers support to the "subjectivity in testing" objection some people have raised here.

[homercles]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Two things, Cles. First of all, I thought you were dropping this, unless new blood posted and showed greater understanding than the rest of us? Two, why do your citations keep referencing BAC as a baseline, if it's not a good measurement? If different alchohol tolerances make BAC no good as a measurement, what does it matter?

I might also add that the section on standardization, in this latest citation, offers support to the "subjectivity in testing" objection some people have raised here.

Uh, Fussy, obviously i chose not to drop it, duh...

And i am willing to continue discussion with folks that actually comprehend my argument (This is my nice way of saying that i was talking to RB who actually understands what im saying and discusses in a coherent manner, now you on the other hand... :confused: ).

Ok, back to you Fussy, what link did you read? Again, you seem to be :confused:. There was mention of the "subjectivity" of the HGN with respect to gaining convictions, but it is still relaible to 88% of all arrests. Which is what im talking about here.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
Uh, Fuzzy, obviously i chose not to drop it, duh...

And i am willing to continue discussion with folks that actually comprehend my argument (This is my nice way of saying that i was talking to RB who actually understands what im saying and discusses in a coherent manner, now you on the other hand... :confused: ).

Cles, can you comprehend the difference between understanding an argument, and agreeing with it? You can't be displaying Alberarrogance, the certitude that what you're such a good communicator, and that the topic is so simple, that the only reason for someone not to agree with your brilliance is noncomprehension, because you tolerate that from Randblade. Just what is it? An unwillingness to accept dissent from anyone who does not already have a degree? Rand, he says you understand his argument. Can you tell me where I'm going wrong? Or is he just suffering under some sort of expert opinion fallacy wrt his posts?

Ok, back to you Fuzzy, what link did you read? Again, you seem to be :confused:. There was mention of the "subjectivity" of the HGN with respect to gaining convictions, but it is still relaible to 88% of all arrests. Which is what im talking about here.

Cles, why would there be a difference between the two in an objective test? Why are the judges objecting?

[homercles]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
You can't be displaying Alberarrogance, the certitude that what you're such a good communicator, and that the topic is so simple, that the only reason for someone not to agree with your brilliance is noncomprehension, because you tolerate that from Randblade.

This is exactly why its difficult to have a discussion with you Fussy. Your replies are often highfalutin run-on sentences, with convoluted meaning. I seriously hope english is your second language, if so i applaud your skills. However, if english is your primary language....well, um... :(

Cles, why would there be a difference between the two in an objective test? Why are the judges objecting?

Well, have you read ANY of the previous posts in this thread? If you did, did you comprehend them? We are talking about the immediate increase in risk associated with driving while impaired. In the field, a cop decides to reduce the risk of an accident by arresting an impaired driver. Task done, risk reduced. What happens in the courts is a totally separate matter.

BTW, i do understand the difference between disagreement and comprehension--do you? Im perfectly happy with people disagreeing with me as long as they understand my argument. What irritates the sh!t outta me is this:

homer: well, i have already said that 1 + 1 = 2;
fussy: youre totally wrong based on the highfalutin highfalutin convolution convolution that -1^(1/2) = 0 + 1.0i; :bulb:

[Deathwatch Guard]

I must express my contempt for this question. It is truly dispicable. Why put forth any argument for drinking and driving with the hundreds (thousands? I don't know the number) of people who are killed as a result of it each year? How self-centered can you be?

People die because of this practice, so if you want to drink it has been decided that it is a good idea to find another way home. Is that so hard? Let's see. Dead person or quick ride home? Dead person or quick ride home? Yet you say you can drive perfectly fine. How many people thought that after they killed someone? How many people got behind the wheel thinking, "Geez. I'm probably about to murder someone." Even if you can drive, why take the chance?

Give me a break.

[Dreadnaught]

I know this has been somewhat dead for about two days, but I wanted to bring up a story my mom told me by coincidence when I was visiting my grandma her this weekend. Just to show the fallability of sobriety tests.

About thirteen years ago, my mom was pulled over in a sobriety test. She failed it. But she hadn't been drinking at all that night. However, she did have some balance problems due to an inner-ear issue that she later had fixed by a doctor. It didn't affect her driving, but she couldn't walk that well and moving her arms around too much made her dizzy and wobbly.

The cops didn't quite believe her. The only thing that stopped her from getting the DUI was a brethalyser test, which found her totally sober.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
No this is not the appropriate analogy. But lets assume it is.

One speeding ticket:
1). License revoked for a year
2). Fine of $1500
3). "Speeding Classes" which the offender pays for ($1000).
4). 60 hours of community service.

Two speeding tickets:
1). License revoked for 2-5 years
2). Fine of $3000-5000
3). More classes to the tune of $5000
4). 30 days in jail.

Three speeding tickets:
1). STATE PRISON (yes, the kind for murders and rapists) for a year....need i continue?What's your point? There is a clear-cut law with a simple-to-measure guide to say whether an individuals driving is legal speed-wise. There are many, many modifying circumstances (ability, state of car etc) but none of those are considered.
Besides the subpopulation im talking about is probably rather small. As i have said before, an individual that is too drunk to drive but decides to get behind the wheel is impaired. Thus, the people in the subpopulation im talking about are not the ones killing other people, causing accidents, or otherwise raising rasing risk factors.There is an even larger proportion of the population who can safely speed. So what? The speeders still get punished even though they may be no individual risk. Why is it that professional racing drivers, driving excellent sports cars have to drive to the exact same speed limit as learners in 15 year old cars in need for repairs? Is that 'criminalising the innocent'?
Additinally, did you know that when usinng the SFST ALONE law inforcement, in a test conducted in 1998, was able to discriminate between above and below 0.08 in 91% of those individuals pulled over? (source (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SFST/introduction.htm))Only 91%? A 9% failure rate is very significant and is thus not acceptable. I've always in my statistics courses rejected anything with a failure rate of over 5% and sometimes required more stringency. That's for economics, not for life-and-death situations where you seemingly think nearly 1-in-10 being incorrectly judged is perfectly acceptable.
As for your bold, italicized, red, and underlined statement, tolerance while easily measured is not quantifiable. As such it is not possible to conduct well controlled experiements under such circumstances. However, basesd upon my knowledge (both as a neuroscientist and drinker) i would say that it is entirely possible that one could display ZERO affects of alcohol and have a BAC > 0.08 at a given time when tolerance was rather high. To have a BAC of 0.08 really only requires just over 3 pints in an hour. Would you say youre pissed after a few pints RB?So you're making it up then? I would not say I'm always pissed after a few pints. But I would say I'm always affected after a few pints. I go through stages before being pissed - merry, tipsy etc - and while perfectly capable and I would be able to do any test while tipsy (and have posted hundreds of thousands posts while tipsy with none the wiser) I recognise my judgement and reaction times will be affected. You're never unaffected.
Q: How effective do you think 0.08 versus 0.10 laws are anyway?I've already answered this. 0.08 is too high and it should be lowered to 0.05 as it is in Australia, home of the drunk.

LF please don't ask me why he says what he does, I can't be expected to answer that.

Dreadnaught, I've had similar circumstances with my friends some evenings. I've been asked why I haven't started drinking (when I've already had a few), and some nights of sobriety (especially while tired) have had friends convinced I'm not sober. Other people simply can't judge, and its of no surprise that this goes down to professionals too.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
I know this has been somewhat dead for about two days, but I wanted to bring up a story my mom told me by coincidence when I was visiting my grandma her this weekend. Just to show the fallability of sobriety tests.

About thirteen years ago, my mom was pulled over in a sobriety test. She failed it. But she hadn't been drinking at all that night. However, she did have some balance problems due to an inner-ear issue that she later had fixed by a doctor. It didn't affect her driving, but she couldn't walk that well and moving her arms around too much made her dizzy and wobbly.

The cops didn't quite believe her. The only thing that stopped her from getting the DUI was a brethalyser test, which found her totally sober.

Interesting point Dread. To be honest, i hadnt thought of that. But what was the "suspicion" the cops had to give her the field sobriety test? They cant just adminster that test willy-nilly.

And yes, this thread has been dead for some time. Care to explain why you have assumed the role of Dr Frankenstein? ;)

[RandBlade]

What's really funny is the links cles is using to back up his views. Remember that I said any failure more than 5% (at the most) is normally considered significant enough to fail a procedure. By failure rate here I refer to the percentage of incorrect decisions.

Earlier he said that "Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus" is a test its not possible to blag. The link he just showed though was that it failed in an astonishing 12% of tests. Walk and turn failed a truly dreadful 21% of times. Finally one legged stand led to cops making the wrong decisions 17% of times, down from. Only by combining all 3 tests was the failure rate even under 10% and then it was still a way too high 9%. Breathalysers fail a lot less than 9% of the time.

Besides which, that article just talks about the importance of tests prior to blood testing. Not as a replacement to blood testing.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by homercles
Interesting point Dread. To be honest, i hadnt thought of that. But what was the "suspicion" the cops had to give her the field sobriety test? They cant just adminster that test willy-nilly.

And yes, this thread has been dead for some time. Care to explain why you have assumed the role of Dr Frankenstein? ;)

It was Thanksgiving. Lots of people go out to Long Island (or from Long Island to the city) to eat with their families. Later at night, the police set up random sobreity checkpoints at certain exits or entrances to the highway. I can only assume that this one was at 106th on the FDR drive because that's where we would get off the FDR when coming back from our annual Thanksgiving dinner at her house on Long Island (before she moved to Florida). I don't remember this happening ten years ago and the cops don't do it every year, but I do remember a random sobriety checkpoint at the 106th street exit about four years ago.

This thread was resurected because I just got back from visiting my grandma once again--but now at her home in Florida.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles
This is exactly why its difficult to have a discussion with you Fussy. Your replies are often highfalutin run-on sentences, with convoluted meaning. I seriously hope english is your second language, if so i applaud your skills. However, if english is your primary language....well, um... :(



Well, have you read ANY of the previous posts in this thread? If you did, did you comprehend them? We are talking about the immediate increase in risk associated with driving while impaired. In the field, a cop decides to reduce the risk of an accident by arresting an impaired driver. Task done, risk reduced. What happens in the courts is a totally separate matter.

BTW, i do understand the difference between disagreement and comprehension--do you? Im perfectly happy with people disagreeing with me as long as they understand my argument. What irritates the sh!t outta me is this:

homer: well, i have already said that 1 + 1 = 2;
fussy: youre totally wrong based on the highfalutin highfalutin convolution convolution that -1^(1/2) = 0 + 1.0i; :bulb:

Well, Cles, Rand's post seems to indicate that he doesn't see why you're hurling "you don't understand what I'm saying" at me, and he's the person you say does understand you. Surely, if he understands your argument, and I don't, he'd be able to see just where I'm getting off-track. So go back and address my points.

English is my first language. I apologize for that paragraph, you're right, it's awful. Apparently I got hit by a wordstorm. I'm curious, though. You've read plenty of other posts I've written. I'd think my previous posts would have given you a better impression of my writing skills. Unless, of course, your own reading level is so low that you can't handle different writing styles.

What happens in the courts is not a wholly seperate matter, the two are intertwined, and part of the same process. Some judges have an objection. That objection is not based on courtroom technicalities, so it's valid. Address it. Even if your counter-claim were valid, it would undermine your argument throughout this discussion. The BAC would reduce risk even more, because it's presumably taking even more people off the road. If, as you assert, courtroom problems with potential inaccuracies in SFST don't matter, then there's no reason for field inaccuracies in BAC to matter.

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
What's your point? There is a clear-cut law with a simple-to-measure guide to say whether an individuals driving is legal speed-wise. There are many, many modifying circumstances (ability, state of car etc) but none of those are considered.

My point is that your speeding analogy is not accurate.

There is an even larger proportion of the population who can safely speed. So what? The speeders still get punished even though they may be no individual risk. Why is it that professional racing drivers, driving excellent sports cars have to drive to the exact same speed limit as learners in 15 year old cars in need for repairs? Is that 'criminalising the innocent'?

Please see my previous post. Do people in the UK go to PRISON for 3 speeding tickets? Also, the fact is that speeding not enforced in the same manner as BAC further invalidates your argument. Speeding is not black-and-white with respect to risk nor is BAC with respect to IMPAIRMENT.

Only 91%? A 9% failure rate is very significant and is thus not acceptable. I've always in my statistics courses rejected anything with a failure rate of over 5% and sometimes required more stringency. That's for economics, not for life-and-death situations where you seemingly think nearly 1-in-10 being incorrectly judged is perfectly acceptable.

And here i though you comprehended my argument. Damn it! :sour: So let me try again. These 9% of individuals that have PASSED the SFST are NOT impaired and are the subpopulation of folks exhibiting some level of tolerance. These individuals do NOT significantly affect the risk of accidents, deaths, or anything else on the road relative to completely sober folks.

So you're making it up then? I would not say I'm always pissed after a few pints. But I would say I'm always affected after a few pints. I go through stages before being pissed - merry, tipsy etc - and while perfectly capable and I would be able to do any test while tipsy (and have posted hundreds of thousands posts while tipsy with none the wiser) I recognise my judgement and reaction times will be affected. You're never unaffected.

No im not making it up. I deducing an hypothesis which is profoundly difficult to test based on the fact that tolerance has so many sources of variability. This does not invalidate such an hypothesis. I am very knowledgeable of EVERY SINGLE FACTOR in this discussion. Can you say the same? Can you invalidate my hypothesis based on current evidence rather than your limited knowledge?

I've already answered this. 0.08 is too high and it should be lowered to 0.05 as it is in Australia, home of the drunk.

So based on this logic you would also advocate a lowering of the current speedlimits even though cars are safer now and easier to drive at higher speeds. Would you still support this perspective if more money was spent on upgrading roads and driver education (the speeding equivalent of my proposal)?

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
My point is that your speeding analogy is not accurate.In what sense? You still haven't said.
Please see my previous post. Do people in the UK go to PRISON for 3 speeding tickets? Also, the fact is that speeding not enforced in the same manner as BAC further invalidates your argument. Speeding is not black-and-white nor is BAC with respect to IMPAIRMENT.Whether or not you go to jail depends upon the circumstances. Only a few mph over won't send you, very over can in the first offence. Same with alcohol.

How is speeding not enforced in the same manner as BAC?
And here i though you comprehended my argument. Damn it! :sour: So let me try again. These 9% of individuals that have PASSED the SFST are NOT impaired and are the subpopulation of folks exhibiting some level of tolerance. These individuals do NOT significantly affect the risk of accidents, deaths, or anything else on the road relative to completely sober folks.So you claim. You have failed to show any evidence to back up that claim however. There is evidence that goes against your claim however.
No im not making it up. I deducing an hypothesis which is profoundly difficult to test based on the fact that tolerance has so many sources of variability. This does not invalidate such an hypothesis. I am very knowledgeable of EVERY SINGLE FACTOR in this discussion. Can you say the same? Can you invalidate my hypothesis based on current evidence rather than your limited knowledge?You're still ignoring my central point of so what if an individual can cope over 0.08? Its a tiny fraction of the population, much smaller than those that can safely drive above the speed limit. No-one needs to drive over 0.08 do they? There are far, far greater reasons to support raising (or lifting) the speed limit.
So based on this logic you would also advocate a lowering of the current speedlimits even though cars are safer now and easier to drive at higher speeds. Would you still support this perspective if more money was spent on upgrading roads and driver education (the speeding equivalent of my proposal)?I support the increasing the use of speed-camera's in residential areas to catch speeders. :up:

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
So you claim. You have failed to show any evidence to back up that claim however. There is evidence that goes against your claim however.

I would REALLY like ot see your evidence which contradicts my claim. I openly acknowledge that my claim is non-conventional. It is solely MY claim. Youre not going to find any web pages that support it or directly reject it, or any commentaries that acknowledge it--it is by its own nature non-convnetional. However, if you would like a butt load of links to papers on tolerance, tolerance acquisition, alcohol tolerance, drug tolerance (and acquisition), not to mention every behavioural variant there of--just ask. As this is one of the central tenets of my arguement. Clearly you could use 'em. If you dont understand the biological/physiological/behavioural basis of tolerance there is NO POINT IN CONTINUING THIS.

What i am attempting to do is raise knowledge that:

1). Impairment is not directly related to BAC (dont interpret this to mean that there is not a positive correlation between impairment and BAC).

2). Tolerance is the mediating factor in this lack of direct relation (in #1).

3). Tolerance is not a fixed, stable, quantifiable entity.

4). Tolerance varies PROFOUNDLY from individual to individual on an HOURLY basis.

5). BAC has NO measures which "correct" for tolerance.

Based on these five EASILY verified facts, one can conclude that it is possible for an individual to have some level of alcohol in his/her blood and still be UN-impaired. All your previous fallacious arguments can now be ignored. Deal with trying to disprove these 5. Plus, feel free (if you know enough about tolerance) to attempt to disprove my conclusions and hypothesis.

oops, ok, i open up this challenge to all folks on the forum. Yes, including you Fussy.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by homercles

5). BAC has NO measures which "correct" for tolerance.


I've got one for #5 off the top of my head. As you've acknowledged earlier, the cops aren't going to pull you over at all unless your driving raises suspicion. There has been an indirect "correction" for tolerance before you've even stepped out of your vehicle.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
1). Impairment is not directly related to BAC (dont interpret this to mean that there is not a positive correlation between impairment and BAC).

2). Tolerance is the mediating factor in this lack of direct relation (in #1).

3). Tolerance is not a fixed, stable, quantifiable entity.

4). Tolerance varies PROFOUNDLY from individual to individual on an HOURLY basis.

5). BAC has NO measures which "correct" for tolerance.

Based on these five EASILY verified facts, one can conclude that it is possible for an individual to have some level of alcohol in his/her blood and still be UN-impaired. All your previous fallacious arguments can now be ignored. Deal with trying to disprove these 5. Plus, feel free (if you know enough about tolerance) to attempt to disprove my conclusions and hypothesis.Tolerance does not stop the affects of alcohol, it slows the affects down. Someone with a higher tolerance is still affected, just not as much as someone who'd drank the same amount. Anyone who's affected at all is still impaired, we simply allow for some impairment.

Copying your 5 points, swap BAC with speed and tolerance with ability:

1). Impairment is not directly related to speed (dont interpret this to mean that there is not a positive correlation between impairment and speed).

2). Ability is (one of) the mediating factor(s) in this lack of direct relation (in #1).

3). Ability is not a fixed, stable, quantifiable entity.

4). Ability varies PROFOUNDLY from individual to individual on an HOURLY basis.

5). Speed has NO measures which "correct" for ability.

PS your facts 3 and 4 show why we need a stable measurement like BAC.

[homercles]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
I've got one for #5 off the top of my head. As you've acknowledged earlier, the cops aren't going to pull you over at all unless your driving raises suspicioun. There has been an indirection "correction" for tolerance before you've even stepped out of your vehicle.

Sure, i acknowledge that and have thought of it. But what about the instances of "mandatory check points?" And the instances of cops pulling people over for no reason at all hoping to get lucky by just plaining the odds? The friend i mentioned previously in this thread was pulled over for pulling out of the paking lot of a bar. According to "police record" he ran a stop sign. :bulb:

To RB: No, my points 3 and 4 make it clear that there needs be a push toward a measure that accurately measures impairment. Also, since you have managed to make it blindingly clear that you dont understand the basic tenets of tolerance let me get you started with a few references from a paper i wrote on the subjuct in grad school (note tolerance is tolerance regardless of the drug):

Adams, W. J., Yeh, S. Y., Woods, L. A., & Mitchell, C. L. (1969). Drug-test interaction as a factor in the development of tolerance to the analgesic effect of morphine. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 168(2), 251-7.
Advokat, C. (1980). Evidence for conditioned tolerance of the tail-flick reflex. Behavioural Neural Biology, 29, 385-389.
Bodnar, R. J., Kelly, D. D., Steiner, S. S., & Glusman, M. (1978). Stress-produced analgesia and morphine-produced analgesia: Lack of cross-tolerance. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 8(6), 661-666.
Bonnet, K. A., & Peterson, K. E. (1975). A modification of the jump-flinch technique for measuring pain sensitivity in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 3(1), 47-55.
Caggiula, A. R., Epstein, L. H., & Stiller, R. (1989). Changing environmental cues reduces tolerance to nicotine-induced anorexia. Psychopharmacology, 99(3), 389-392.
Cepeda-Benito, A., & Short, P. (1997). Morphine's interoceptive stimuli as cues for the development of associative morphine tolerance in the rat. Psychobiology, 25(3), 236-240.
Cepeda-Benito, A., & Tiffany, S. T. (1993). Morphine as a cue in associative tolerance to morphine's analgesic effects. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 46(1), 149-152.
Dafters, R., & Bach, L. (1985). Absence of environment-specificity in morphine tolerance acquired in non-distinctive environments: Habituation or stimulus overshadowing? Psychopharmacology, 87(1), 101-106.
Dafters, R., Hetherington, M., & McCartney, H. (1983). Blocking and sensory preconditioning effects in morphine analgesic tolerance: support for a Pavlovian conditioning model of drug tolerance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 35(Pt 1)(9039), 1-11.
Dafters, R. I., Odber, J., & Miller, J. (1988). Associative and non-associative tolerance to morphine: Support for a dual-process habituation model. Life Sciences, 42(19), 1897-1906.
Ferguson, R. K., Adams, W. J., & Mitchell, C. L. (1969). Studies of tolerance development to morphine analgesia in rats tested on the hot plate. European Journal of Pharmacology, 8(1), 83-92.
Goldstein, A. (1978). Enkephalins, opiate receptors, and general anesthesia [editorial]. Anesthesiology, 49(1), 1-2.
Greeley, J., Lê, D. A., Poulos, C. X., & Cappell, H. (1984). Alcohol is an effective cue in the conditional control of tolerance to alcohol. Psychopharmacology, 83(2), 159-62.
Grisel, J. E., Watkins, L. R., & Maier, S. F. (1996). Associative and non-associative mechanisms of morphine analgesic tolerance are neurochemically distinct in the rat spinal cord. Psychopharmacology, 128(3), 248-255.
King, D. A., Bouton, M. E., & Musty, R. E. (1987). Associative control of tolerance to the sedative effects of a short-acting benzodiazepine. Behavioral Neuroscience, 101(1), 104-114.
Lang, W. J., Brown, M. L., Gershon, S., & Korol, B. (1966). Classical and physiologic adaptive conditioned responses to anticholinergic drugs in conscious dogs. International Journal of Neuropharmacology, 5(4), 311-5.
Mansfield, J. G., & Cunningham, C. L. (1980). Conditioning and extinction of tolerance to the hypothermic effect of ethanol in rats. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 94(5), 962-969.
Mucha, R. F., Volkovsiks, C., & Kalant, H. (1981). Conditioned increases in locomotor activity produced with morphine as an unconditioned stimulus, and the relation fo conditioning to acute morphine effect and tolerance. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 95, 351-362.
Oka, T., & Hosoya, E. (1976). Effects of humoral modulators and naloxone on morphine-induced changes in spontaneous locomotor activity in the rat. Psychopharmacology, 47(3), 243-248.
Schnur, P. (1985). Morphine tolerance and sensitization in the hamster. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 22(1), 157-158.
Siegel, S. (1975a). Conditioning insulin effects. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(3), 89-99.
Siegel, S. (1975b). Evidence from rats that morphine tolerance is a learned response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(5), 498-506.
Siegel, S. (1977). Morphine tolerance acquisition as an associative process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3(1), 1-13.
Siegel, S. (1978). Tolerance to the hyperthermic effect of morphine in the rat is a learned response. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 92(6), 1137-1149.
Siegel, S. (1984). Pavlovian conditioning and heroin overdose: Reports by overdose victims. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(5), 428-430.
Siegel, S. (1990). Classical conditioning and opiate tolerance and withdrawal. In E. D. J. K. Balfour (Ed.), Psychotropic drugs of abuse. International encyclopedia of pharmacology and therapeutics, Section 130. (pp. 59-85): Pergamon Press, Inc, Elmsford, NY, US.
Siegel, S., & Ellsworth, D. W. (1986). Pavlovian conditioning and death from apparent overdose of medically prescribed morphine: A case report. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24(4), 278-280.
Siegel, S., Hinson, R. E., Krank, M. D., & McCully, J. (1982). Heroin "overdose" death: Contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science, 216(4544), 436-437.
Subkov, a. a., & Zilov, g. n. (1937). The role of conditioned reflex adaptation in the origin of hyperergic reactions. Bulletin de Biologie et de Medecine Experimentale, 4, 294-296.
Tiffany, S. T., & Baker, T. B. (1981). Morphine tolerance in rats: Congruence with a Pavlovian paradigm. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 95(5), 747-762.
Tiffany, S. T., Drobes, D. J., & Cepeda-Benito, A. (1992). Contribution of associative and nonassociative processes to the development of morphine tolerance. Psychopharmacology, 109(1-2), 185-190.
Tiffany, S. T., & Maude-Griffin, P. M. (1988). Tolerance to morphine in the rat: Associative and nonassociative effects. Behavioral Neuroscience, 102(4), 534-543.
Tiffany, S. T., Maude-Griffin, P. M., & Drobes, D. J. (1991). Effect of interdose interval on the development of associative tolerance to morphine in the rat: A dose-response analysis. Behavioral Neuroscience, 105(1), 49-61.
Tirelli, E., Jodogne, C., & Legros, J.-J. (1992). Oxytocin blocks the environmentally conditioned compensatory response present after tolerance to ethanol-induced hypothermia in mice. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 43(4), 1263-1267.
Walter, T. A., & Riccio, D. C. (1983). Overshadowing effects in the stimulus control of morphine analgesic tolerance. Behavioral Neuroscience, 97(4), 658-62.
Wolgin, D. L., & Benson, H. D. (1991). Role of associative and nonassociative mechanisms in tolerance to morphine "anorexia.". Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 39(2), 279-286.
Young, R. D., Thorn, B. E., Levitt, R. A., & Weyant, M. J. (1978). Use of the flinch-jump technique to study narcotic analgesia in the rat. Physiological Psychology, 6(2), 226-228.

[RandBlade]

You seem to have missed my point I keep repeating cles. I don't care if someone is tolerant. We need a legal limit for alcohol, just like we do for speed.

Ability to drive at higher speeds is far more variant than alcohol tolerance yet we don't consider it in the slightest. Hell, people drive over the speed limit for their jobs (racing drivers) but on normal roads they're not allowed to. No-one drink-drives for their job.

The affects of tolerance are no different than the affects of ability or the state of a car. As it improves, the risk decreases, but none of those are (quite rightly) taken into account.

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
You seem to have missed my point I keep repeating cles. I don't care if someone is tolerant. We need a legal limit for alcohol, just like we do for speed.

I know what point youre making. Yet, with relevance to my argument it is totally erroneous. Because we both agree that there should not be impaired drivers on the road. However, you mistakenly believe that BAC directly measures impairment. I have provided tons of evidence and statements that more direct measures of impairment should be used. You apparently (im still not sure if you completely understand the biology of tolerance) disagree with this, fine. But based on your logic you also have no problem with some profoundly harsh punishments for individuals that have NOT increased risk of injury or death to themselves or others by their actions. Isnt this the primary goal of drunk driving legislation?

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
I know what point youre making. Yet, with relevance to my argument it is totally erroneous. Because we both agree that there should not be impaired drivers on the road. However, you mistakenly believe that BAC directly measures impairment. I have provided tons of evidence and statements that more direct measures of impairment should be used. You apparently (im still not sure if you completely understand the biology of tolerance) disagree with this, fine. But based on your logic you also have no problem with some profoundly harsh punishments for individuals that have NOT increased risk of injury or death to themselves or others by their actions. Isnt this the primary goal of drunk driving legislation?

Also a cop can pull you over if you are driving eratically. That is subjective also. Should they not be able to do that since it is not a set limit.
As Fuzzy was saying they are not going to pull you over unless they have a reason. With sobriety check points they check everyone so you are not singeled out. I don't think anyone has said that BAC is a direct correlation but it is a legal limit. You said the police report for your friend said he ran a stop sign. Where you with him? If so did he?
You can argue all you want about having a tolerance but in most cases you have to be abusing it as your own references show to have a tolerance built up.

Bottom line they have 1 subjective standard and 1 set standard. They have those lmits so someone can't say as you are that it doesn't apply to them because they are different. If your friend was over the limit then he was breaking the law that was in place. It sucks but its not like the law wasn't known.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
I know what point youre making. Yet, with relevance to my argument it is totally erroneous. Because we both agree that there should not be impaired drivers on the road. However, you mistakenly believe that BAC directly measures impairment. I have provided tons of evidence and statements that more direct measures of impairment should be used. You apparently (im still not sure if you completely understand the biology of tolerance) disagree with this, fine. But based on your logic you also have no problem with some profoundly harsh punishments for individuals that have NOT increased risk of injury or death to themselves or others by their actions. Isnt this the primary goal of drunk driving legislation?I don't believe that BAC directly measures impairment. Nor do I believe it should just be those that are a risk to others who should be removed from the road. Since 10 is a good number I'll break it down in 10 simple logically consequential points.

1: I believe that BAC is correlated to impairment.
2: I believe that all those who're impaired must be banned from driving.
3: I believe a fixed measurable level should be in place.
4: I believe that with a level low enough to catch all the offenders, it will also catch those not a risk.
5: I don't care about #4 and believe that those who consider themselves no risk but are over the limit shouldn't drive.
6: I believe that anyone who breaks the law with regards to #5 should be punished. Whether they were potentially not a risk or not is not relevant.
7: I believe the limit works well in the vast majority of cases and is the best option available.
8: You believe those over the limit but potentially not a risk are innocent as they were potentially not a risk.
9: I believe anyone over the limit is guilty of breaking the law because there is a limit, for good reasons.
10: I have no problem with punishments for individuals who choose to break the law and are guilty of driving over the limit.

[homercles]

You have also said that "the law is set in stone..." Is this why you are incapable of recognizing that some laws are unjust? Do you also think that all unjust laws should not change, as they are set in stone afterall? Personally, i believe you are stuck at one spot in the japanese rock garden and not willing to move. :p

To Uber: The law is known, what im doing is questioning whether its a just law, or whether this is a case where propaganda and scare tactics from a few groups is capable of not only changing laws, but also of changing the collective consciousness (or is that the collective unconsciouness ;) ).

[Spin]

Originally posted by ductonius
Thats only if you concinder those who consume alchohol and then drive as "innocent".

What you are complaining about is simply a difference of opinion.

Its the law here, I sort of assumed that it was illegal to consume alchohol and drive a motor vehicle in all modenr western countries...its just logical and moral to me as its the way I was brought up.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
You have also said that "the law is set in stone..." Is this why you are incapable of recognizing that some laws are unjust? Do you also think that all unjust laws should not change, as they are set in stone afterall? Personally, i believe you are stuck at one spot in the japanese rock garden and not willing to move. :p Since I've been advocating a change in the law all along (to 0.05), do you really think that's what I meant? What I meant was that for an individual there is a simple, clear-cut limit that is set in stone for the individual. Without a change in the law, every driver knows what the exact limit is and if you break it and drive then its your fault, no-one elses.

[homercles]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Since I've been advocating a change in the law all along (to 0.05), do you really think that's what I meant? What I meant was that for an individual there is a simple, clear-cut limit that is set in stone for the individual. Without a change in the law, every driver knows what the exact limit is and if you break it and drive then its your fault, no-one elses.

Still unwilling to change your position in the Japanese rock garden? Not even a little? :sour:

BTW, the quotes were from a previous post of yours. :p

[Spin]

Originally posted by homercles
No one here has yet to address my point. It is possible to have consumed alcohol and still have reaction times, visual performance, coordination, etc that is no different from someone that has not consumed any alcohol. Tolerance will make it possible for one to consume even more alcohol and still have no difficulty with the field sobriety test which was SPECIFICALLY designed to test one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. BAC does nothing to determine this, in fact the "cutoff" for impairment is conpletely ARBITRARY. Yet this "test" is used as a measure for sending folks to jail and slapping them with huge fines? :confused:

To AR: you have got some serious issues buddy. Plus i never said anything about people who cause accidents when impaired. :mad: Please, read the posts before spreading more unnecessary propaganda.

It is *possible* but we have to legislate for the majority, not a possible minority....some people are perfectly capable of driving a car under responsible control at speeds of 100mph+ but most countries accept that there should be a set limit according to the bounds of what is reasonable to expect from the majority of the population...legislating for the best performance of a group will only lead to those below that level being in a situation where they will still be causing the problem that made legislation necessary.

Thats a general point for all control legislation..I understand that drugs have to be controlled because many people could not be able to control their intake/escalation but know that such an issue is not a matter to me as I have been happily using a measured and never rising dose without escalation for 20 years (I smoke approx 3 ounces of marijuana a year).

Hope that illustrates the reasoning behind the legislation.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Spin
Hope that illustrates the reasoning behind the legislation.

Nope, i have already addressed this as it is an erroneous analogy. The speed limit is set as a direct reflection of human limits with respect to reaction time (and the current safety rating of the average auto). The faster you go the more time you need to react to a situation. This is why speedlimits are much higher on highways where the roads are free of pedestrians and children running after balls. On the other hand, BAC does not directly reflect ones level of impairment. As such, the "cap" on BAC is absolutely and completely 100% arbitrary.

If you want a better, more accurate analogy, see my previous post with respect to which of two 1972 Honda Accords would be safer to drive.

My question is why NO ONE has been able to challenge my 5 point logic on the previous page? Obviously these feeble speeding analogies dont hold water.

[RandBlade]

Speed is positively correlated with ones impairment. Alcohol is positively correlated with ones impairment.

You seem to have missed my point yet again. Yes people can be relatively unimpaired. My point is that I couldn't care less about that. Of course I've already said that multiple times but you're still dragging it up again as if its unaddressed. You simply ignored my logical post just above though. Surprise, surprise there eh?

[homercles]

Correlation is NOT causation there buddy. Just because BAC is correlated with impairment does not mean 0.05 BAC (or whatever) IS impairment. If you dont understand this try reading a few of the references i posted for you.

The fact that you dont care to challenge unjust laws is fine with me but it does not invalidate my logic one iota. According to your logic, it is just if ONE or a hundred innocent men go to the chair because of a capital punishiment law. By my logic, this is not just.

I didnt address your "10 point bulletin" because it was just silly "i believe" nonsense. How about challenging my 5 points on the previous page? I have already, as you would say, torn your speeding analogy to shreds. How about a more logical approach this time?

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles
Correlation is NOT causation there buddy. Just because BAC is correlated with impairment does not mean 0.05 BAC (or whatever) IS impairment. If you dont understand this try reading a few of the references i posted for you.

The fact that you dont care to challenge unjust laws is fine with me but it does not invalidate my logic one iota. According to your logic, it is just if ONE or a hundred innocent men go to the chair because of a capital punishiment law. By my logic, this is not just.

I didnt address your "10 point bulletin" because it was just silly "i believe" nonsense. How about challenging my 5 points on the previous page? I have already, as you would say, torn your speeding analogy to shreds. How about a more logical approach this time?

You say that it is possible to drink and not have a lowered response time? Can you give us 1 scientific study with regards to impairment and alchohal not affecting driving ability? The ones before were pertaining to drug effectiveness and appearing affected.. Because .05 is correlated to impairment that means in most people that they are impaired. We are not supposed to have one set of rules for all people except special ones.

Again I must state that Tolerance when it comes to drinking is your perception and apperance of being drunk. You can say its unjust but until another test comes up to measure response time that people will say you could practice to pass comes out it is what we have.

Here is an quote for you.

Alcohol tolerance. The repeated performance of a particular task in association with alcohol consumption can lead to the development of a form of adaptation referred to as "learned" or "behavioral" tolerance (21). Learned tolerance can reduce the
alcohol-induced impairment that would ordinarily accompany the performance of that particular task (21). However, when conditions change or when something unexpected occurs, the tolerance acquired for that task can be negated (22).

These findings may be applicable to the performance of tasks involved in drinking and driving (21,23). A driver who has developed behavioral tolerance to driving a familiar car over a particular route under routine circumstances may drive without being involved in a crash, despite consumption of some alcohol (21,23). However, when encountering a novel environment--for example, a detour--or an unexpected situation, such as a bicycle darting in front of the car, this same driver would be at the same risk for a crash as a novice driver at the same BAC, due to lack of prior learning opportunities for these unexpected events.

Here is the page.

http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blnaa31.htm

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by homercles
Correlation is NOT causation there buddy. Just because BAC is correlated with impairment does not mean 0.05 BAC (or whatever) IS impairment. If you dont understand this try reading a few of the references i posted for you.Just because you're going at over 70 miles per hour on a motorway doesn't mean that you're impaired either.
The fact that you dont care to challenge unjust laws is fine with me but it does not invalidate my logic one iota. According to your logic, it is just if ONE or a hundred innocent men go to the chair because of a capital punishiment law. By my logic, this is not just.Again its not unjust as drink-drivers are never innocent. They've chosen to break the law and drive after drinking. They're guilty, plain and simple. I drink more than is healthy for me, I drink most days sometimes, I also drive, however I won't get caught over the limit. Why? Because I don't drink and drive. If you drink and are caught you're guilty, you've chosen to break the law. Any punishments on someone who's guilty like that are not unjust.

Someone would only be 'innocent' if they've not been drinking but the breathalyser was positive. You've got a twisted sense of justice if you think those who've chosen to break the law are innocent.

I haven't challenged your points as I'm not ****ing disputing them! Get it?

[St. Mark]

Originally posted by RandBlade
You've got a twisted sense of justice if you think those who've chosen to break the law are innocent.

Tell that to the "soft drug" users on this forum... :o

[Spin]

Originally posted by homercles
My question is why NO ONE has been able to challenge my 5 point logic on the previous page? Obviously these feeble speeding analogies dont hold water.

Obviously you are ignoring relevence in favour of a pre-determined viewpoint and will do so persistently.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by St. Mark
Tell that to the "soft drug" users on this forum... :o No, because most of them are Dutchies ;) :p

Any non-Dutch soft drug users are breaking the law. Most soft-drug users I know won't deny they're breaking the law either, they just don't care. Same as I don't care that I'm breaking the law when I speed on the motorway. However if I get caught then its my fault and I would have to pay the consequences, I would not be innocent though, it was me who broke the law. Same with the drug users, they just take that risk. If they get caught and prosecuted then they've got no-one to blame but themselves.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by homercles


1). Impairment is not directly related to BAC (dont interpret this to mean that there is not a positive correlation between impairment and BAC).

2). Tolerance is the mediating factor in this lack of direct relation (in #1).

3). Tolerance is not a fixed, stable, quantifiable entity.

4). Tolerance varies PROFOUNDLY from individual to individual on an HOURLY basis.

5). BAC has NO measures which "correct" for tolerance.


oops, ok, i open up this challenge to all folks on the forum. Yes, including you Fussy.

1. This is a faulty question because you are trying to explain tolerance being factored in. Hence you cant use you own argument as a supporting fact in your argument.

2. This is what you are trying to prove

3. Agreed because it is based on your perception and others perception of you.

4. Agreed

5. It doesn't need to correct for tolerance. It is a tangible factor. If you are over the limit you are over the limit. No exceptions.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
1. This is a faulty question because you are trying to explain tolerance being factored in. Hence you cant use you own argument as a supporting fact in your argument.

Consuming alcohol causes ones BAC to rise. BAC can obviously be measured and a number is assigned that represents the amount of alcohol in ones blood. This method does not measure the affects of alcohol consumption.

As to your previous post: there is a profound difference between behavioural tolerance and biological tolerance. Im talking about biological tolerance.

As for the lack of scientific measures of tolerance and driving ability, i already addressed this in a previous post. But again, since tolerance is such an elusive thing that can not be controlled or carefully manipulated it is possible that it could accuont for ALL the variability in a such a study. And since tolerance in this case would be your independent variable, the best you could hope for would be inconclusive results. Basically, just bad science. The methods im advocating measure the affects of alcohol consumption directly. Rather than trying to estimate the affects indirectly.

[homercles]

:haha: :haha:

Someone actually went through the trouble of making a web site on this topic:

http://damm-madd.com/

And i thought i was alone on this one. :p

[homercles]

Originally posted by Spin
Obviously you are ignoring relevence in favour of a pre-determined viewpoint and will do so persistently.

So, then prove my logic to be "obvioulsy" falliable. I am persistently arguing my persective because no one here can develop a coherent argument against my hypothesis. If you feel ALL laws shoud be based on the opinon of a small number of individuals, fine. If you (and RB) feel like thats a perfectly logical perspective, fine. I DISAGREE. And i disagree with the same vehemence you profess. Go gain some knowledge about the topics im talking about then come back and we can talk. Until then, i truly hope this thread dies and i can only hope that it may have lead to the expansion of knowledge on this topic for so many misled folks that believe the hype. Pathetic hype in my book....

[RandBlade]

I have no more inclination to partake in a thread whereby the person I'm disagreeing with ignores what I say time and again and its the same for everyone else and instead merely insults those who disagree with him.

My main point has been consistent throughout this thread and you have failed to address it at all, instead you've parotted the same things time-and-again, whether addressing myself or others.

[termite]

Originally posted by homercles
:haha: :haha:

Someone actually went through the trouble of making a web site on this topic:

http://damm-madd.com/

And i thought i was alone on this one. :p

So you're not the only rummy with a license and a tendancy to b*tch and moan - what a surprise.:haha:

Get over it buddy, if you cannot drink without driving then don't drink. If you cannot go without a drink then driving is the least of your problems.

[BTCOMM]

Originally posted by homercles
No its not a matter of "opinion." Law enforcement has done their best in developing tests to determine if an individual is capable of operating a vehicle safely. This test measures motor coordination and cognitive functioning among other things. This is obvioulsy the "road side sobriety test." By ALL opinions if an idividual passes this test s/he is capable of operating a vehicle safely and as such has commited no crime. However, that person can still be arrested and imprisoned if BAC is above some arbitrary level.

Im not arguing that an individual that is clearly impaired and fails the road side sobriety test should be considered innocent, but rather that people who pass the road side test yest "fail" a BAC test should not be criminalized.

To Lewk: You have clearly been mislead by the propaganda. :sour: Does everyone that drives after say, one drink, turn into a crazy, out of control, drunk driver capable of mowing down innocent drivers and pedestrians alike? :confused:

I think if the person has one drink they aren't going to fail the BAC test.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by BTCOMM
I think if the person has one drink they aren't going to fail the BAC test. Why'd you bump this nine month old foolishness?

[St. Mark]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Why'd you bump this nine month old foolishness?

Maybe he has a really slow internet connection. :o

Anyway, aren't all threads open for discussion until they get pruned? If not, why do they keep them around and not have a routine monthly or quarterly cleaning? :bulb:

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by St. Mark
Anyway, aren't all threads open for discussion until they get pruned? If not, why do they keep them around and not have a routine monthly or quarterly cleaning? :bulb: Of course they are, however normally when someone bumps a thread they have a reason to do so, I want to know why he did it.

[St. Mark]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Of course they are, however normally when someone bumps a thread they have a reason to do so, I want to know why he did it.

I always thought it was usually a UTer doing a drive-by thread bumping or thread starting on the CC just to see our reactions. :o