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