Drinking and driving

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clanter

since we are nearing the end of off topic time....here is something to remember if you decide drinking then driving is OK

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...kandGeorge.jpg

Mark was our son, he was killed by a drunk driver eleven years ago

---

I am so sorry, Clantor. Such a tragic loss.

A couple I know likes to entertain a fair bit in the summer, and most evenings year round there is a lot of (heavy) social drinking at their house. I started distancing myself when I realized that they drank a lot more than I was comfortable with , and that they had no problem letting guests leave when clearly drunk, and drive their own vehicles home.
I remember one barbecue my DSO and I attended, and when we met one guest a few days later, we shared some of the photos from the evening.
Guest said "When were those taken?" and had NO recollection of having even been at the barbecue - he had also driven half an hour home on a four lane highway. I took my friend aside and said I was concerned, but she just shrugged it off.
I think ALL bars should comp soft drinks for DDs - some do, as the DD is identified by a coloured bracelet - which also means the bartender won't serve him or her alcohol.
Dee

imagine the outcry if those were plane crashes? What I mean is - think of how it would be all over the media, and the demands for safety and change.

I am allergic to something in alcoholic beverages and have never been able to keep any of it down long enough to know what they do to you.
You can't believe how hard it is to tell everyone, time and again, that no, thank you, I better not drink anything, or get sick right away.
Especially when they have had a few already, they don't seem to take no for an answer.
I just quit going anywhere if drinking is involved.

I think if we had videos of how everyone acts after drinking a bit, maybe some would decide they better quit drinking.

Alcohol begs the question, why would anyone on purpose drink poison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluey

Alcohol begs the question, why would anyone on purpose drink poison?

---

people drink for social reasons mostly, at least till they are drunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pAin't_Misbehavin'

The police stop you, question you about your alcohol use, sniff to see if they smell it, glance around the inside of your car, ask to see your license and registration and proof of insurance, etc. That's a search. All on absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing - just a fishin' expedition.

---

Does not bother me one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guilherme

No, this is NOT a "search." When you take a motor vehicle on a public highway you are exercising a privilege. To avail yourself of that privilege statute requires you to display to proper authority your license to operate that motor vehicle. In addition, statutes require that you show your registration and proof of insurance. Every jurisdiction I know of requires that an officer have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity before they can make a stop. Once they have that, then they can do the ID check. If, while doing that check, they detect evidence of illegal activity they may investigate further.

I can't speak to other states, but in TN only the State Police may conduct "sobriety check points" and those must be published (date, location, etc.). County or city officers may assist them. AFAIK it's an open question as to whether a vehicle turning to avoid a check point gives rise to "reasonable suspicion" for a stop.

I've been stopped a few times over the years outside our local are (where I know all the troopers). In each instance the stop was professionally conducted and took no more than a few seconds (with no more than a few minutes in line, at most).

During any traffic stop the officer may request permission to search the vehicle. There is no duty to say "yes." The officer may delay your departure to get a K-9 unit, but the delay must be "short." Most times that means not more than 20-30 min. The actual time varies by state.

If you want to prevent intoxicated persons from operating motor vehicles then we could require that all be equipped with intoxication/impairment detection technology. IIRC in TN on second or subsequent DUI conviction the court will order installation of a "breathalizer" that is interconnected to the ignition. Before you can start the car you have to "blow." If you're above a limit (which might be as low as 0.00%) then the car won't start. This only works with alcohol.

I've seen demonstrations of other technologies where simple puzzles must be solved to complete the starting process. I don't know if any of them are in use.

G.

---

Yes, sobriety checkpoints constitute at least a "minimally invasive" search and seizure. See e.g. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The majority recognized that sobriety check points were searches and seizures touching on the Fourth Amendment, but found the government's interest in preventing drunk driving outweighed the impact on an individual's right to be free from same absent probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion. The dissenters would have held that the balancing test is not proper when an individual's Fourth Amendment rights are affected.

Stopping a car simply because its route intersects a checkpoint doesn't give rise to "reasonable suspicion." The majority held, of course, that the brief detention and questioning that may give rise to "reasonable suspicion" was a minimal impact on a person's Fourth Amendment rights.

I don't see how ignition locks do much good. People just get somebody else to blow in the thing. The puzzles would work the same way. But I have no problem with the government using them, since it's clear that convicted felons don't enjoy the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluey

Alcohol begs the question, why would anyone on purpose drink poison?

---

Well for one thing, it isn't "poison" in the same way that, say, cyanide is. Plenty of people around the world enjoy alcohol and suffer no ill effects mentally or physically.

And people drink it because it gives you a nice buzz/high, helps loosen you up socially. It just makes you feel . . . good.

Unless you overdo it, of course, which is a whole other ball of wax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Windsor1

Well for one thing, it isn't "poison" in the same way that, say, cyanide is. Plenty of people around the world enjoy alcohol and suffer no ill effects mentally or physically.

And people drink it because it gives you a nice buzz/high, helps loosen you up socially. It just makes you feel . . . good.

Unless you overdo it, of course, which is a whole other ball of wax.

---

First that popped up on Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15114325

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluey

First that popped up on Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15114325

---

Bluey, the negative effects of alcohol as discussed in that article appear to be confined entirely or primarily to those who drink in excess of "healthy drinking" limits (from the article you linked):"

However, drinking more than three drinks a day has been found to have a direct and damaging effect on the heart. Heavy drinking, particularly over time, can lead to high blood pressure, alcoholic cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure and stroke. Heavy drinking also puts more fat into the circulation of the body.

I don't think there's much of a case to be made for the "toxicity" of alcohol when consumed in moderation or only occasionally, which is how much of the population enjoys it.

And I can't think of any other "poisons" that have scientifically proven benefits. Alcohol does. You can Google that too.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/55...ts-of-alcohol/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16173568...few-cocktails/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pAin't_Misbehavin'

I don't see how ignition locks do much good. People just get somebody else to blow in the thing. The puzzles would work the same way. But I have no problem with the government using them, since it's clear that convicted felons don't enjoy the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.

---

No, that is not how ignition locks work now. You have to blow to start the car, and then blow again randomly every 5 to 15 minutes, and possibly when you turn the car off. In order to have someone else blow for you you'd be better off just having the sober person drive.

If you really want to reduce impaired driving, why don't they put a "sobriety check" station in each bar or restaurant, perhaps in the bathrooms? you could check your BAC, and do a brief impairment test on yourself before deciding whether to call a cab or not- perhaps a short video game that tests reflex time that would be fun to play after blowing your BAC. Since you really can't tell yourself if you're impaired or not- as mentioned, alcohol reduces your judgement. And making up rules about "none" are kind of silly- most adults are perfectly capable of driving after having one or two drinks with a meal. I suspect more people are impaired by feeling drowsy after eating than are impaired by that one glass of wine drunk several hours ago. I'd feel safer if the non-drinkers had the chance to take a brief "impairment" test before deciding to drive too- gee, I'm too drowsy/ had too much cold medicine/ too much wine all produce the same result.

Making false claims and shrieking about "impairment" don't drive after even one drink just makes you sound hysterical so no one listens to you after that.

Driving DRUNK is very different from driving after eating a meal with a glass of wine, and it's the impaired drivers you need to stop, not the non-impaired drinkers.

Methinks everyone should get a breathalyzer unit for fun and see what .08 ACTUALLY feels like. In my experience, it was NOTHING like I expected. I felt FINE, but I was LEGALLY IMPAIRED. It was a real eye-opener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ybiaw

Methinks everyone should get a breathalyzer unit for fun and see what .08 ACTUALLY feels like. In my experience, it was NOTHING like I expected. I felt FINE, but I was LEGALLY IMPAIRED. It was a real eye-opener.

---

I've often thought that would be really educational. Where did you get that done?

Interesting Mythbusters experiment comparing driving while distracted (with cell phone) to driving under the influence:

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...g-minimyth.htm

You can actually buy handheld ones online. I know someone that carries one and uses it religiously before leaving a bar to make sure he's not just feeling fine and doesn't leave until it's 0.00.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Come Shine

I've often thought that would be really educational. Where did you get that done?

---

My BIL is a cop. We were drinking at his house one night and thought it would be an interesting experiment.

You can buy them online, too - Amazon has them, and you can even find them at Walgreens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ybiaw

Methinks everyone should get a breathalyzer unit for fun and see what .08 ACTUALLY feels like. In my experience, it was NOTHING like I expected. I felt FINE, but I was LEGALLY IMPAIRED. It was a real eye-opener.

---

How much had you had to drink and what did it register?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ybiaw

You can buy them online, too - Amazon has them, and you can even find them at Walgreens!

---

Wow. Learn something new every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendy

If you really want to reduce impaired driving, why don't they put a "sobriety check" station in each bar or restaurant, perhaps in the bathrooms? you could check your BAC, and do a brief impairment test on yourself before deciding whether to call a cab or not- perhaps a short video game that tests reflex time that would be fun to play after blowing your BAC. Since you really can't tell yourself if you're impaired or not- as mentioned, alcohol reduces your judgement. And making up rules about "none" are kind of silly- most adults are perfectly capable of driving after having one or two drinks with a meal. I suspect more people are impaired by feeling drowsy after eating than are impaired by that one glass of wine drunk several hours ago. I'd feel safer if the non-drinkers had the chance to take a brief "impairment" test before deciding to drive too- gee, I'm too drowsy/ had too much cold medicine/ too much wine all produce the same result.

Making false claims and shrieking about "impairment" don't drive after even one drink just makes you sound hysterical so no one listens to you after that.

Driving DRUNK is very different from driving after eating a meal with a glass of wine, and it's the impaired drivers you need to stop, not the non-impaired drinkers.

---

They actually used to have BAC breathalyzer units on the wall nearest the exit in a lot of bars. However, many bars removed them as they actually presented more of a liability - they became a "toy" for drinking patrons. And I've actually had the privilege to see how this happens first hand - One bar my friends and I frequent (a honky tonk type place) still has one of these. You insert the required amount of change, place a straw (available at the bar) over the hole, and blow. The last time we were there, several guys started doing it repeatedly as a "contest" to see who could blow the highest BAC. :sigh:

Unfortunately, I can also attest to the notion that sometimes, it doesn't matter how educated a person is about the consequences of drunk driving - they still think they are invinsible. I would say 95% of my friends and acquiantances drive after drinking an unacceptable amount on a regular basis. Which is one of the many reasons I am almost always a DD (pretty much the only time I'm not is if we are drinking somewhere that we are also staying the night).

Also - to the person who brought up bars not charging DDs for non-alcoholic drinks... all you have to do is ask :) I make it known when we are at the bars that I am a DD and I have never had an establishment charge me for my drinks.