Booze underway

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

LE, you've misunderstood my point, so let me state it again: there are lots of ways to be impaired. So in that sense they are equivalent. But obviously, not "ALL" impairment are equal in impact and scale. That was the distinction I was responding to (a distinction you made in the phrasing of the two questions).

Does that make it clear?

There are studies (I cited one) which draws a direct link between hours of sleep deprivation and BAC. I'm sure if we all look, we can find others that do the same for age and physical related impairments.

The simple point is that lots of things can lead to impairment. You can argue that drinking and driving deserves special consideration because it is a choice, yet so is driving while exhausted, or driving when old.

There are substantial differences in the impairments that you insist on lumping together. And you don't acknowledge the different ways in which the different "impairments" are already understood and mitigated. And that some are temporary and voluntarily acquired.

For instance - sleep deprivation, in many ways might be closest to drunk-driving in that it's a temporary condition, and one around which there's usually a choice. And guess what? We do try to manage this. There are rules around hours worked for professional drivers. And I suspect that any non-professional driver who drove excessive hours, or got behind the wheel when they were already fatigued, would possibly get charged with negligence if their condition was a factor in a collision.

If there was as reliable a way as BAC to assess drowsiness, then maybe we could test drivers for restedness... and sentence offenders to a nap.

Being old, or diabetic, or other conditions that affect one's ability to drive: doctors are obligated to advise their patients, AND to report significant impairment to authorities. These are conditions that usually come on gradually and are chronic, and the patient adapts to them. Your reaction time might increase, but so does wisdom and judgement. You leave more room, and you don't emulate the speeding, bumpertailing, aggressive driving style of younger drivers.

Again, if the impairment of merely getting old represented a significant increase in accident involvement, we'd know by now.

Alcohol is a distinct class of impairment. Its set of temporary effects is different, especially the way in which it also influences judgement and temperament. And it's an impairment that is 100% voluntarily acquired, and driving impaired is 100% avoidable. But the place of drinking in our folklore, and the winking-at of drunk driving as a rite of passage, makes us reluctant or resistant to efforts to eradicate it.

But why the push to lower the threshold? Used to be 0.08 was the measure. This has now changed where penalties can be doled out for those measuring as low as 0.05.

Could it be that at 0.08, some people were still significantly impaired?

If there's no moral outrage for voluntary acts that are demonstrably irresponsible and put others at risk... what is a sense of morality for?

[boatman61]

Then there's the argument that drinking at anchor is more dangerous than drinking underway...
So many more things to go wrong while under the influence.. if SHTF and one drags and hook needs hauling in a hurry, everyone knows the dangers with chain/rode to feet and fingers.. engine needs starting, manoeuvres in restricted space amongst other boats etc..
At least at sea I am reefed main at sunset with just a genny to work from the cockpit and worst comes to the worst just heave to and sleep, read, whatever..

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Given the moral outrage stoked by advocates and police, I can see that the push is to drive it to zero-tolerance. Already, new drivers have to meet the zero threshold.

If you eat 2 ripe peaches, or a couple of slices of freshly baked bread, your BAC will not be 0.00

And therein lies the problem with increasingly sensitive detection technology and zero thresholds. See, for example, this article about the folly of using the presence of cocaine residue on money as evidence that the person carrying the money is a dealer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency.

[Mike OReilly]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree LE (as usual ). No need to restate what I've already said.

I do think one should be very careful invoking moral outrage in response to behaviour one finds distasteful. It's a double-edged sword that can easily be directed in other ways (hence my drag queen example, where some do believe it is causing harm to society).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I do think one should be very careful invoking moral outrage in response to behaviour one finds distasteful.

Agreed. But let's also not use our concerns about applied "moral outrage" to steer us away from taking practical and sensible steps to deter dangerous behaviour that puts others at risk. (And I don't think that anyone in this thread finds alcohol consumption distasteful. )

Modern cars are capable of being driven safely at 120 to 140 km/h... but we still limit the maximum speed on highways to 100 or 110 km/h. On the subway, they want us to stand 6 ft away from the platform edge. I've stood closer and lived to talk about it. We always want to have a margin of safety when we regulate.

A BAC of 0.05 still leaves room for a person to enjoy ONE alcoholic beverage in just about any situation, and then to drive. Hell, you are probably safe to have two drinks with a meal, if you have coffee and dessert after and sit for an extra hour. How is this being unnecessarily restrictive, to anyone but the inconsiderate or problem drink/driver?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CrispyCringle

Wow, this is a long thread with lots opinions. But to sum up 13 pages:
- It looks like some folks absolutely dont drink onboard and some do.
- Those that do not imbibe onboard are pretty opinionated about it.
- And getting pissed is generally frowned upon.
I think that about sums it up.

Yep, you nailed it ( and the split is fairly close to 50:50 between the wowsers and the drinkers)

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I am STILL out of beer , but not rum.

Life is good but could be better

Got the beer.

Where are we in this preachy discussion?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Got the beer.

Where are we in this preachy discussion?

Drinking at anchor is more risky than when sailing..

[SY Harmony]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Drinking at anchor is more risky than when sailing..

Unless you’re hit by a rogue whale

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Drinking at anchor is more risky than when sailing..

drinking on shore and then coming back to boat on anchor is absolutely the most dangerous thing most of us do

[Bycrick]

Notice how easy it is for people to "justify" their personal, subjective positions with the seasoning of a few adjectives. Demanding that other people agree with their "positions" is simply justified by making them "reasonable positions," the hidden assumption being that because they think that they’re "reasonable," all right-thinking people must agree.

[Nauticus]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

We don't drink while the boat is underway. That includes everything from short hops to multi-day passages. Given that we are a two-person crew, it just seems unwise, and unnecessary.

Once the anchor is down, the beers come out (as long as no nasty weather is predicted). But never underway.

BTW, not saying that those who drink responsibly on passage are wrong. It's just not what we do.

I'm in exactly the same camp. [emoji121]

[stewie]

I lost a very good friend of mine through alcohol. He was single hander and had made an overnight passage from Eyemouth to the River Tay. It was presumed that he had fallen into the sea when he was attempting to pick up his mooring. The yacht was found drifting with a empty bottle of whisky and his body was found 3 weeks later down river. The police confirmed that he had bought a full bottle of whisky from a bar in Eyemouth the night he had sailed.

[jalmberg]

I haven't read all the posts in this already over-long thread, but didn't see any mention of 'medicinal alcohol'.

In a 1950 issue of Rudder, the long-gone monthly magazine for yachtsmen, a physician developed a list of items every boat should have aboard, leaning heavily toward Benadryl, bicarbonate of soda, aspirin, and whiskey.

Every cruiser should find and read this article, because that doctor's prescriptions still work!

For example, after climbing the mast, mid-ocean, on our transatlantic passage last spring, I prescribed myself a dose of aspirin and rum! The aspirin for the numerous bruises I collected on the way up and down, and the rum for my nerves!

I felt much better afterwards!

A lot of people on this forum could benefit from a little rum, I think.

[Carl-T705]

Shocked is a little overzealous a reaction to people consuming alcohol on a passage. The boozers are involved in many activities including work and pleasure.