Posted by B. Peg on August 4, 2008, 10:32 pm
> Seems to me you just picked the wrong crew to test. I'll bet if you
> picked a bunch of bar flies who drive home regualarly after several
> drinks they wouldn't make the best racers either. But I'll bet they
> wouldn't show any dicernable level of impairment either and could
> drive/ride circles around a bunch of lightweight racers under the
> influence.
To that point I agree. I know a really tall woman (6') who can routinely
hit .40 (or 5x legal limit) and still function as nothing was wrong. I've
even watched her math skills and walking. Nothing amiss. She's done it for
years. By standards, she should almost be passed out or comotose. Pretty
amazing to watch.
For me, I know at .03-.04 I'm feeling pretty messed up to drive. Fwiw, one
past conviction of a DUI in CA in 2009 and a new test reads .01 you're
busted! No more .08 if you have one conviction in 2009 in California. I
bought a breathalyzer at Target and it's pretty amazing to see where you
find yourself goofy at.
It's just affects folks differently.
Cell phones? I dunno. Most seem in another space on them. Hell, I got
lost in a neighborhood while on the cell. I turned off the main road to not
bother others if I did some dumb-ass manuver and just plain-ass got lost.
Should have just pulled over and stopped.
B~
Posted by Robert Bolton on August 4, 2008, 11:29 pm
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
>> I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving
>> recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but
>> many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking.
>Bullshit. Just because you're dumb enough to say that -and wish it
>were so- that still doesn't make it true.
>Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient."
The medical profession would disagree with you. "Too much" for
someone who drinks once a year is much less than "too much" for
alcohol tolerant people (people who drink often enough to build up a
tolerance to the drug).
One law that actually causes accidents is the open container law. When
someone who has been drinking all evening stops, they have about 20
minutes to get where they're going before the reduction in alcohol
level in their blood causes them to pass out. They'd be far less
likely to fall asleep at the wheel if they would be permitted to
continue drinking while they drove home.
Robert
Posted by Twibil on August 5, 2008, 2:26 am
> >> I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving
> >> recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but
> >> many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking.
> >Bullshit. Just because you're dumb enough to say that -and wish it
> >were so- that still doesn't make it true.
> >Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient."
> The medical profession would disagree with you.
How odd: I know *lots* of doctors, yet I've never heard one say that
allowances should be made for a drunk driver's personal tolerance for
drink.
> "Too much" for
> someone who drinks once a year is much less than "too much" for
> alcohol tolerant people (people who drink often enough to build up a
> tolerance to the drug).
Most of us learned clear back in grade school that the law doesn't
make exceptions for those who commit crimes just because *they* think
they shouldn't be held responsible because they're "special".
You can't do the time, don't do the crime. And stop whining.
> One law that actually causes accidents is the open container law.
Sure it does. Give us a few dozen cites, would you?
Posted by Robert Bolton on August 6, 2008, 2:30 am
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
>> >> I believe they should just leave drivers alone unless they are driving
>> >> recklessly. Cellphone use and drunkeness can cause reckless driving, but
>> >> many drivers are still proficient while talking or drinking.
>>
>> >Bullshit. Just because you're dumb enough to say that -and wish it
>> >were so- that still doesn't make it true.
>>
>> >Might as well say "Many blind drivers are still proficient."
>>
>> The medical profession would disagree with you.
>How odd: I know *lots* of doctors, yet I've never heard one say that
>allowances should be made for a drunk driver's personal tolerance for
>drink.
>> "Too much" for
>> someone who drinks once a year is much less than "too much" for
>> alcohol tolerant people (people who drink often enough to build up a
>> tolerance to the drug).
>Most of us learned clear back in grade school that the law doesn't
>make exceptions for those who commit crimes just because *they* think
>they shouldn't be held responsible because they're "special".
>You can't do the time, don't do the crime. And stop whining.
>> One law that actually causes accidents is the open container law.
>Sure it does. Give us a few dozen cites, would you?
My wife goes to a neurologist once a year to get her epilepsy script
renewed. One time I picked up a book on alcohol abuse while sitting
in the waiting room and read it. Among other things, the book
explained alcohol tolerance, how long term heavy alcohol use tans your
innards, how molecule membranes can toughen up due long term heavy
drinking to the point where they no longer properly absorb nutrients.
It also explained the "get home in 20 minute or you'll pass out" rule.
Chemistry is chemistry, regardless of state law.
Robert
Posted by Twibil on August 6, 2008, 2:48 am
> >How odd: I know *lots* of doctors, yet I've never heard one say that
> >allowances should be made for a drunk driver's personal tolerance for
> >drink.
> My wife goes to a neurologist once a year to get her epilepsy script
> renewed. One time I picked up a book on alcohol abuse while sitting
> in the waiting room and read it. Among other things, the book
> explained alcohol tolerance, how long term heavy alcohol use tans your
> innards, how molecule membranes can toughen up due long term heavy
> drinking to the point where they no longer properly absorb nutrients.
> It also explained the "get home in 20 minute or you'll pass out" rule.
BEEP! (Bullshit detector explodes...)
That book didn't say *anything* about the medical profession thinking
that exceptions should be made to the drunk driving laws for people
who may -or may not- have a greater tolerance for alcohol. Which is
what you're implying.
And you know perfectly well that nobody in the medical profession -
other than those of them who drive drunk- would *ever* say anything of
the sort. Because it's stupid.
> Chemistry is chemistry, regardless of state law.
And the "I should be above the law because I can hold my booze"
attitude is still selfish and stupid, regardless of chemistry.
XML Sitemap
> picked a bunch of bar flies who drive home regualarly after several
> drinks they wouldn't make the best racers either. But I'll bet they
> wouldn't show any dicernable level of impairment either and could
> drive/ride circles around a bunch of lightweight racers under the
> influence.