Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Skipped right over the caveat, which basically says the chart is useless. Wow!! The chart is just an approximation?? Shocking. FYI, breathalyzers themselves are inaccurate: link/link The information in the link I posted is as good as any regarding the effect x number of drinks will have and it's most definitely a lot better than the guesses we've seen here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Just prohibit alcohol entirely, and problem is solved. Given the number of fatalities because of it, either by drunk driving or death directly from overdrinking, it's the only sensible thing to do. Right? Okay, can you come up with a honest idea? How can the situation be improved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Just prohibit alcohol entirely, and problem is solved. Given the number of fatalities because of it, either by drunk driving or death directly from overdrinking, it's the only sensible thing to do. Right? Nonsense, impaired driving isn't restricted to alcohol, it includes any drug legal or otherwise. Alcohol is the only one that has legal limits for blood content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Just prohibit alcohol entirely, and problem is solved.Given the number of fatalities because of it, either by drunk driving or death directly from overdrinking, it's the only sensible thing to do. Right? Uh, no. In Canada, the State cannot forbid drinking alcohol. But I think, Manny, that you are on the right track.I disagree with the 0.5 or 0.8 rules. I think that the State must forbid drivers with any alcohol at all. Years ago, I recall the Soviet Eastern European laws for this: zero tolerance. As a result, most people (other than those with political protection) who drank in a place far from home had a designated driver. Zero tolerance rules work for driving and alcohol. Heck, we have taxis and Operation Nez Rouge. [The story of crime: 1. What is the benefit of the crime? 2. What is the chance of being caught?] ---- As to the question of the OP, I must answer that years ago, I drove a car while I was drunk. Now, I won't touch my car keys after even one beer. Edited January 3, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Zero tolerance is a terrible idea. It might work in a city like Montreal, where you can hop on the metro and have all kinds of great and efficient public transportation. However, it doesn't work outside large cities like that. If I have to drive into town for a dinner, why should I be prohibited from having a glass of wine with my meal or having a beer and some wings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Zero tolerance is a terrible idea. It might work in a city like Montreal, where you can hop on the metro and have all kinds of great and efficient public transportation. However, it doesn't work outside large cities like that. If I have to drive into town for a dinner, why should I be prohibited from having a glass of wine with my meal or having a beer and some wings? O.M.G. I completely agree with Cybercoma - right down to the "beer and wings!" If there is zero tolerance with alcohol, there had better be with drugs, too - and that includes legal as well as illegal, and that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Twice in a week. Hell must be frozen over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I thought the old field sobriety tests were better than breathalizers. And they will work on someday thats wasted on drugs, or medication as well. I would raise the legal limit to .1 from .08. Those are the responsible drinkers that really do just have a glass of wine or two with dinner. But since some people shouldnt be driving even after one beer, I would also give the police the discretion to hand out a 24 hour suspension based completely on his discretion, that would have no criminal penalty attached. More importantly though is to have evidence based laws. They should study the circumstances around motor vehicle accidents, and figure out how many are alcohol related VS other contributing factors such as eating, drinking, using a cell phone, etc. And we should focus any spending based on those results. Right now we probably put too much enforcement dollars towards drunk driving and not enough towards other things, because the anti-drunk-driving side has large powerful lobbies, and every time some little kid dies in a carwreck where a driving had a tiny ammount of alcohol in their blood, theres this big emotional plea. Even though a bunch of other kids died in other motor vehicle accidents as well. Special interest lobbies oughtta be curtailed, whether they are groups like MADD or lobbies from large corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I bet it would if your car had a breathalyzer-ignition inter-lock. If you just slammed them back you'd have to weigh four or five hundred lbs to be that immune. Two beers? Really? I don't know how much time you've spent in bars, but I've spent a few evenings tippling with friends. They used to have breathalyzers right on the wall, and I spent quite a few looneys figuring out exactly how much I could drink before I hit .08. Five beers over two hours and I'm still legal. And those machines are pretty accurate, since I've been forced to blow at roadside checks shortly after and I always come in under the wire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I thought the old field sobriety tests were better than breathalizers. And they will work on someday thats wasted on drugs, or medication as well. I would raise the legal limit to .1 from .08. Those are the responsible drinkers that really do just have a glass of wine or two with dinner. But since some people shouldnt be driving even after one beer, I would also give the police the discretion to hand out a 24 hour suspension based completely on his discretion, that would have no criminal penalty attached. More importantly though is to have evidence based laws. They should study the circumstances around motor vehicle accidents, and figure out how many are alcohol related VS other contributing factors such as eating, drinking, using a cell phone, etc. And we should focus any spending based on those results. Right now we probably put too much enforcement dollars towards drunk driving and not enough towards other things, because the anti-drunk-driving side has large powerful lobbies, and every time some little kid dies in a carwreck where a driving had a tiny ammount of alcohol in their blood, theres this big emotional plea. Even though a bunch of other kids died in other motor vehicle accidents as well. Special interest lobbies oughtta be curtailed, whether they are groups like MADD or lobbies from large corporations. I agree with everything you've said here, and you've summed up the current state of the drinking and driving hysteria. I recall back in the mid-80s when this was just catching steam, some grad student out of the University of Alberta looked at good sampling of provincial accidents and did as you suggested, figured out what exactly was responsible for the accident rather than just pointing to alcohol because it was present. I can't remember the exact figure, but it was pretty small, as in under 5% of accidents were actually caused by a drunk driver. You can bet that study never got a lot of airplay. Did you know the woman who founded MADD (due to her daughter being killed by a drunk driver) no longer belongs to the organization? I heard her in an interview on CBC saying she quit years ago when the organization was over-run by neo-prohibitionist fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Two beers? Really? Yeah, really. Five beers over two hours and I'm still legal. How about two beers over 10 - 15 minutes on an empty stomach? Edited January 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 How about two beers over 10 - 15 minutes on an empty stomach? Last time I did that I was canoeing across Saskatchewan on the South Saskatchewan River and after 10 days in the sandhills, I hit #4 highway a bit grubby, soaked and sunburnt, and I parked my canoe on a beach. After tip-toeing through a cactus minefield in my runners, I got to the hiway to hitch my way to Kyle to resupply. I thought this would be easy since it was rural Saskatchewan, but apparently I was just a tad too scruffy to have in the car. After 20 minutes I tired of rejection and walked the 18 miles to town. It wasn't too hot, around 27C, but it took a few hours and when I finally reached the bar in Kyle I croaked out to the bartender, "Give me two Pil, I won't even taste the first one." And I didn't, much to their amusement. After the first two in five minutes I just settled back to enjoy the tunes, the cooler climate, and a couple more beers. I was just getting ready to load up and head back to the canoe since I still had enough light to make it back to the river and a few miles downstream, when the after work crowd hit the bar. They were nice folks, and couldn't stand the sight of me sitting alone so they sucked me into their table and we enjoyed an interesting evening together. Point is, two beers really depends on who's drinking it where. I can drink 6 beers and still walk 18 miles back to where I started and canoe another ten. If two beers makes you dizzy and incapable of operating machinery, that's your problem. But don't judge me by your limitations. I come from a long line of functional alcoholics, and I'll bet I've done more half-pissed than you ever did sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I'll bet I've done more half-pissed than you ever did sober. I'll bet I've done more half-pissed than you ever did sober. I think you'd win that bet too. I come from a long line of functional alcoholics There's been a bit of that in my line too. FAS ever been an issue in your's? Edited January 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 There's been a bit of that in my line too. FAS ever been an issue in your's? No, lucky for me my Mother's Norwegian, not taken to the drink, so I percolated in a non-alcoholic womb. But once out of there my Dad was a country musician and the arse went out of 'er. There I was, pissy in my diaper, listening to steel guitar and sweet harmonies, and the die was cast. I drank a battleship worth of rum playing hillbilly tunes in every small honky-tonk in Saskatchewan. Never hurt nobody, but I sure made a lot of them dance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Zero tolerance is a terrible idea. It might work in a city like Montreal, where you can hop on the metro and have all kinds of great and efficient public transportation. However, it doesn't work outside large cities like that. If I have to drive into town for a dinner, why should I be prohibited from having a glass of wine with my meal or having a beer and some wings? Sorry but I would disagree. Zero tolerance is not arbitrary as the .05 or .08 laws are. So many different people react differently . I like Swedens law. Drink? Dont drive. Easy , no hassle to recall number of drinks, how long since food or something else and so on. Have a drink? dont drive. The .05 law is a disaster and is a result of MADD (ugh those assholes) For one, should you NOT be convicted in court.....oh wait, you cant even challenge it! Lose your money, car impounded and insurance hassles (maybe). Frankly just because you live in the country is no excuse. Arrange a ride if that is the case. Now, dont get me wrong, I dont want anyone to think I am high and mighty although I drink very little and an evening out is a one drink thing for me. Thus I tend not to worry about getting caught. Also being in insurance one might think I approve of all these new laws, but I dont. I just wish that instead of the state (w MADD's help) trying to make cash off of booze impoundments, they just said, "any alcohol in the system" equals impairment. Impaired as one opined , can mean almost anything, from Contact C to booze to lack of sleep . COnviction can be swift, however , Pot is one charge that is hard to convict on (not that there is a law for DWP )since the metabolic rate for pot is far different than booze. ETA: In my earlier days, drinking and driving was a norm. But that gave way to DD days and a social conscience. R.I.D.E. was originally a moniker for Reduce Imparied Drving in Etobicoke as it was the test area. Pretty sure it caught on elsewhere soon after. Edited January 3, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Luck won out here too. I was a pretty good flat-picker myself back in the day but fishing pretty much buggered up my fingers. I guess I can still swing a jug of porch-climber if needs be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'd say driving tired is far more dangerous than driving with 2 drinks within an hour in your system. Zero Tolerance is a certainly a terrible idea. Most responsible drinkers can have a drink or two with a dinner and successfully drive home as long as they stay below a drink an hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Luck won out here too. I was a pretty good flat-picker myself back in the day but fishing pretty much buggered up my fingers. I guess I can still swing a jug of porch-climber if needs be. You like flat-picking, fishing and moonshine? Maybe you're not as big an asshole as you seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Impaired as one opined , can mean almost anything, from Contact C to booze to lack of sleep . COnviction can be swift, however , Pot is one charge that is hard to convict on (not that there is a law for DWP )since the metabolic rate for pot is far different than booze. That's a problem, an arbitrary blood content limit is only applied to alcohol whereas other drugs are only subject to a standard sobriety test. With BC's laws, lot of people blowing .05 could actually pass that test yet would face much more severe consequences than a pothead who failed it. A person blowing .08 and passing it could wind up with a criminal record. Our laws regarding impaired driving are far from consistent, a least they are when it comes to determining what constitutes impairment. Edited January 3, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'd say driving tired is far more dangerous than driving with 2 drinks within an hour in your system. I think you're right, but what could be done about it? Make some kind of machine that detects you're getting sleepy? Or you might get distracted by the radio, or that fabulous blonde walking by the side of the road. Good looking women should be prohibited! Message is, life is dangerous. There is no safety interlock for stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I think you're right, but what could be done about it? Make some kind of machine that detects you're getting sleepy? Or you might get distracted by the radio, or that fabulous blonde walking by the side of the road. Good looking women should be prohibited! Message is, life is dangerous. There is no safety interlock for stupidity. Law enforcement could very easily eradicate the majority of drunk driving very quickly. Check out everybody leaving bar and restaurant parking lots in the late evenings. Do the same outside of halls which host stags, weddings etc. Drunks would fill the jails and many businesses would go bankrupt. Instead, it chooses to play this game of giving the public a chance to “run” for a bit and then the real process begins. Innocent people keep getting killed and we keep playing this silly game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 You like flat-picking, fishing and moonshine? Maybe you're not as big an asshole as you seem. My wife says I look better after a few drinks too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Law enforcement could very easily eradicate the majority of drunk driving very quickly. Check out everybody leaving bar and restaurant parking lots in the late evenings. Do the same outside of halls which host stags, weddings etc. Drunks would fill the jails and many businesses would go bankrupt. Instead, it chooses to play this game of giving the public a chance to “run” for a bit and then the real process begins. Innocent people keep getting killed and we keep playing this silly game. We should be pushing for hands free Goggle-cars. I can't think of anything else that would revolutionize so much in such a profound way. I can't think of a better economic recovery plan either - challenging our society to automate our transportation like this should be on a par with challenging a nation to put a man on the moon. I can't imagine why the amortization period in which the savings in lives, health care and insurance premiums would pay for it would be too long. Might put a few insurance brokers, claims adjusters and lawyers out of work but that's like a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Law enforcement could very easily eradicate the majority of drunk driving very quickly. Check out everybody leaving bar and restaurant parking lots in the late evenings. Do the same outside of halls which host stags, weddings etc. Drunks would fill the jails and many businesses would go bankrupt. There are more bars, restaurants and banquet halls than there are Policemen. Now what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Law enforcement could very easily eradicate the majority of drunk driving very quickly. Check out everybody leaving bar and restaurant parking lots in the late evenings. Do the same outside of halls which host stags, weddings etc. Drunks would fill the jails and many businesses would go bankrupt. Cops harrassing citizens is illegal. They could prevent gun violence simply be searching people whenever they want even if there is no cause too.... but, luckily, we don't allow this. Lots of crimes could be prevented if we would only give up all those pesky freedoms!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.