Booze underway

[flightlead404]

Weed isn’t worse, just different. I’m fact studies have shown driving high is safer than driving drunk because the weed used knows how high they are and compensates eg driving much slower (like old men in hats). Part of the problem with alcohol is that one of the effects is that you lose the ability to tell how drunk you are

[dannc]

Originally Posted by brazenarticle

..
In the last couple years many of the N/A beers are pretty good. The brewers ain't stupid, there is a huge market and they are trying to satisfy that.
...

Yep, as I mentioned up thread, the non alcohol beers I have tried recently are pretty danged good. If the brewers had not tried to emulate an existing beer with alcohol, most would not notice the slight taste difference. I was really surprised how good these N/A beers taste AND they have much fewer calories.

Later,
Dan

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

Weed isn’t worse, just different. I’m fact studies have shown driving high is safer than driving drunk because the weed used knows how high they are and compensates eg driving much slower (like old men in hats). Part of the problem with alcohol is that one of the effects is that you lose the ability to tell how drunk you are

Booze raises aggression levels very easily.. especially behind that wheel.

[AKA-None]

Limited data points but most belligerent people I have seen over the year were drunk not stoned

You used to be able to identify the stoners as they drove slower than everyone else

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok folks, I am absolutely NOT buying the argument that because we legally permit drivers with health or age-related impairments, then we should also not penalize "norrmal" people who deliberately, voluntarily get impaired before getting behind the wheel.

I don't think that's what anyone has said LE -- at least not me. I am saying that the issue should be impairment, not how one gets impaired. There are lots of ways to be impaired behind the tiller or behind the wheel. If we were consistent (which society rarely is ), we'd treat them all the same.

But I think you may have, perhaps unintentionally, explained why we penalize alcohol-caused impairment vs so many other forms, some of which can be equally impairing*. It's the 'choice' around drinking and driving that offends so many of us (me included).

If we were consistent, it wouldn't matter how the impairment happened. But then, a lot more people would be pulled off the road. And while it is socially acceptable to be tired, or ill, or old, being drunk is no longer so. As noted earlier though, this is a relatively recent change in society.

The other important factor is that while BAC is a valid proxy for impairment, it's not at the level of exactitude codified in the law. In the real world, a 0.08 measure produces widely different levels of actual impairment.

But much like so many other legal benchmarks, this one is necessarily arbitrary (much like say, voting age, or things like the 3nm limit for dumping effluent). I say necessary because I recognize the law is a blunt instrument which doesn't do well with nuance.

* Moderate sleep deprivation produces impairments in cognitive and motor performance equivalent to legally prescribed levels of alcohol intoxication

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If we were consistent, it wouldn't matter how the impairment happened. But then, a lot more people would be pulled off the road. And while it is socially acceptable to be tired, or ill, or old, being drunk is no longer so. As noted earlier though, this is a relatively recent change in society.

In ways that I can't really formalize, or even articulate clearly, I see a moral distinction between a blind man walking into traffic, and a sighted man putting on a blindfold and walking into traffic.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I am saying that the issue should be impairment, not how one gets impaired. ...If we were consistent (which society rarely is ), we'd treat them all the same....If we were consistent, it wouldn't matter how the impairment happened.

Thanks Mike for the thoughtful reply.

As comments in this thread help illuminate, impairment from alcohol is a special beast. As well as reducing our alertness and abilities, it is also suppresses inhibitions, and increases volatility. Good-bye rational judgment. Just what you want behind the wheel.

You can't just point to other "impairments" and claim equivalence. Things like being tired - we already try to prevent, in professional drivers anyway. If someone lives with a physical health impairment 24/7, they're constantly aware (and reminded) of their shortcomings and they consequently have to exert more effort and care in all their driving.

Whereas, alcohol impairment is (hopefully) not the average person's default state. Choosing to drink to impairment, then CHOOSING to drive, is a deliberate act. Why shouldn't the latter be treated as a criminal act?

It seems that perhaps the #1 reason that people are really against that idea is that, gulp, just about all of us have broken that law... and perhaps too many of us, or our friends, still occasionally break that law, and we don't yet think it's that big of a deal?

[edit - maybe the above is attempting to formalize what Chris Owen just expressed.]

[Mike OReilly]

I think what you two (LE and CO) are illustrating is exactly the point I'm clumsily trying to make. Our drinking and driving laws are penalizing the choice some individuals are making, in this case the choice to drive after drinking. It's not really about the real problem, which is impairment on the roads. It's a moral determination.

I think that is exactly why some of us are feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the continual push for decreasing BAC limits. It's less about public safety, and more about imposing certain moral codes. It's about altering behaviour some find intolerable.

That may be fine in the case of drinking and driving, but what about, oh I dunno, say public drag queen performances? Some people find this activity intolerable, and we currently see how this is playing out in public spaces.

If the benchmark is, what I find intolerable -- regardless of actual impact to society -- we quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope of moral righteousness.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can't just point to other "impairments" and claim equivalence.

I am doing exactly that. If the benchmark is impairment, and it's impact on others, then how one gets impaired should be irrelevant. And yes, there is direct research equating things like tiredness to alcohol consumption.

I disagree that drinking necessarily removes your ability to know you are drunk. For some, this is the case, but not everyone. In fact, I'd say most people who have consumed alcohol can self-regulate, as proven by the fact that most people don't drive drunk.

But looking at tiredness, it's as much a deliberate choice to drive sleepy as it is to drive drunk. The same could be said for driving when old, with many health conditions.

And not to beat the horse to death, but a BAC of 0.08 does not produce the same level of impairment in everyone. It's just that this is easy to measure, and impairment is not.


BTW, this is a fun and interesting discussion. I hope no one is getting the nose out of joint over it (I know LE is not, but we have history ).

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

Weed isn’t worse, just different. I’m fact studies have shown driving high is safer than driving drunk because the weed used knows how high they are and compensates eg driving much slower (like old men in hats). Part of the problem with alcohol is that one of the effects is that you lose the ability to tell how drunk you are

Totally ridiculous and untrue assumption.

It's the alcoholic (aka heavy drinker) that knows to be more cautious

Any person that drinks a 6 pack daily or so has no trouble driving after a few beers.

Just go to any bar and observe.

First you'll notice the cars and trucks in the parking lot.

Then you'll see folks leaving between 10 pm - 2 am and drive away by themselves.....out to the interstate and head home at 70 miles per hour or so. They would normally drive 78-80 with a 70 mph speed limit but they are being cautious

It's not like the " one beer" drinkers on this thread which is actually sort of weird for one that drinks beer.

I guess you folks think people in bars have one beer in the four hours are so they spend there

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think what you two (LE and CO) are illustrating is exactly the point I'm clumsily trying to make. Our drinking and driving laws are penalizing the choice some individuals are making, in this case the choice to drive after drinking. It's not really about the real problem, which is impairment on the roads. It's a moral determination.

I think that is exactly why some of us are feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the continual push for decreasing BAC limits. It's less about public safety, and more about imposing certain moral codes. It's about altering behaviour some find intolerable.

That may be fine in the case of drinking and driving, but what about, oh I dunno, say public drag queen performances? Some people find this activity intolerable, and we currently see how this is playing out in public spaces.

If the benchmark is, what I find intolerable -- regardless of actual impact to society -- we quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope of moral righteousness.

In the case of drinking and driving, this is not about personal opinion on what a given person considers intolerable. It isn't about differing moral values. There is an overwhelming amount of proof that drinking and driving, and at what BOC% causes accidents and kills innocent people that were not involved in that choice at all. And likewise, it is proven that drunk driving laws and enforcement have saved countless lives.

Dressing in drag doesn't cause people around you to die. And no one is saying you can't drink yourself to death. You can even drink yourself to death while in drag. But, when your actions (whatever they are) bring bodily harm to innocent people of no relation to you, the public who is being harmed has every right to require you to stop.(by passing drunk driving laws) That is one of the most basic concepts of an organized society. The same is true if someone "chooses" to rob people at knifepoint. So what if that person claims it is "tolerable" to them so it doesn't matter that it is "intolerable" to others. No one got killed, and only sometimes will someone get killed. Society has every right to declare that robbing someone at knifepoint isn't ok.

Your argument sounds more like a sovereign citizen argument or an anarchist argument- that you feel you should be able to do whatever you want without consequences, regardless of how your actions affect others. That is, quite thankfully, not the world we live in.

[sailorboy1]

I am STILL out of beer , but not rum.

Life is good but could be better

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

BTW, this is a fun and interesting discussion. I hope no one is getting the nose out of joint over it (I know LE is not, but we have history ).

Impairment is very difficult to measure. It is even more difficult when it comes to weed, as it's possible to measure THC in the blood, but it might have been a very long time since that person smoked, or a person might have a tolerance where they can smoke a great deal and not get high or impaired at all.

And yes, to some degree the same is true with alcohol, a heavy drinker can have a much higher BAC and not be as impaired as someone that doesn't drink as much, and sex, weight, and last time you ate all make a difference.

But that doesn't mean that it is regulating morals and not impairment. There are other ways to measure impairment (roadside tests) that are often (usually?) used to make the determination, and BAC measured after the arrest to back it up in court.

More on topic with this post. I don't care if people drink on *their* boats, if they keep it under control. But, quite frankly, if I am trying to do something important (even if it isn't on a boat) and someone with just a couple beers in them, well below .08, it can be annoying as hell listening to them. If nothing important is going on and I am drinking and in on it, fine. But I am not going to drink under passage(I simply don't have the desire), and as such, I don't want others drinking around me. And as the captain, I can make that call. Before I had that rule, I had to kick someone off my boat for getting out of control. Since I have had that rule, not a single person ever has flinched or complained about it. So for me, the rule works well.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wholybee

In the case of drinking and driving, this is not about personal opinion on what a given person considers intolerable. It isn't about differing moral values. There is an overwhelming amount of proof that drinking and driving, and at what BOC% causes accidents and kills innocent people that were not involved in that choice at all. And likewise, it is proven that drunk driving laws and enforcement have saved countless lives.

OK. Point to this "overwhelming evidence." Where is it shown that 0.08 is the magic number. I'm into reading research. Show me.

If it's not about moral values, then the focus should be on the impact to the community. IOW, the actual impairment. Point is, lots of things can make you impaired behind the wheel, so they should all be treated the same. They are not.

The point with the drag reference was to illustrate that some find it morally reprehensible, even though there is no impact on the community. Just like some find consuming alcohol, and then driving, as morally reprehensible, regardless of whether the person is actually impaired, or not.

Originally Posted by wholybee

Your argument sounds more like a sovereign citizen argument or an anarchist argument- that you feel you should be able to do whatever you want without consequences, regardless of how your actions affect others. That is, quite thankfully, not the world we live in.

Never been accused of that one before. Funny. I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.

My argument is that we should focus on the actual impact to society.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

OK. Point to this "overwhelming evidence." Where is it shown that 0.08 is the magic number. I'm into reading research. Show me.

If it's not about moral values, then the focus should be on the impact to the community. IOW, the actual impairment. Point is, lots of things can make you impaired behind the wheel, so they should all be treated the same. They are not.

The point of a quantified threshold is to set a bright, measurable line. If a person tests below the chosen BAC level, then statistics can demonstrate that that person is very likely not impaired by alcohol. In fact I believe that this is why a lower level (0.05) has since been set in some jurisdictions: it turns out that some people are demonstrably impaired at 0.08, whereas at 0.05, it's much more likely that no adult is impaired significantly at that BAC.

You're still sticking to an unproven assertion that all impairments are equivalent; they most certainly are not. Here's where you could show us stats that demonstrate that the diabetic or the old person's "impairment" results in the same probability of accident involvement as that of a healthy/younger person who's above the 0.08 level at the time of their accident.

Tough stats to find, I imagine, but I'm sure the insurance industry has a handle on it; they insure diabetics and old people too. Ever wonder why auto insurance rates drop, the older you get?

My argument is that we should focus on the actual impact to society.

For this - you need to show us some numbers, too.