|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... demonstrate than alcohol content in the blood ... The fallacy of the scientific result as a gospel truth. There is a loose correlation between the alcoholic content of the blood and the ability of different people to cope with situations. Some are blinded by a drink or two, while others can drink all night and be better than the former. My brother participated in a study, and actually was able to peform better with a little alcohol than with none. Bad for the study eh? And look at people who have conditions like ADD and ADHD and what they are able to concentrate on in tasks -- I know I am easily distracted, almost to being unable to ignore things around me. Ability to perform tasks can be measured and can be tested for getting a license and repeated after every accident. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The fallacy of the scientific result as a gospel truth. The scientific result is a massive indication that a person has been drinking. Drink driving is a crime. Whether or not it is justified as a crime is irrelevant. An adult has responsibility to abide by the law or face the consequences for not doing so. If you drink before you drive, you are running the risk of having too much alcohol in your system to legally drive.
Some are blinded by a drink or two, while others can drink all night and be better than the former. I imagine the number of people that have consistently quicker reaction times at a BAC of 0.08 is astonishingly small.
Ability to perform tasks can be measured and can be tested for getting a license and repeated after every accident. As far as I'm aware the ability to perform tasks is already tested to get a licence. Do it again after every accident? That's going to cost a heck of lot - there are about 8 million accidents reported in the UK per year. If we are looking at 50-100 to pay for each one: 400million - 800million is not inconsiderate, especially given that as it stands the UK motor insurance industry already pays about 100million more in claims than it takes in premiums. It would be nice if we could treat every case individually and treat each person as unique, but we are stuck with a law that has to be general and draw a definite line, and allow the individual to appeal later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you would rather let anyone drive and pay the cost of accidents and injuries and deaths before sorting out who is really just plain incapable of driving safely and knowing their limits?
I had my van hit on a residential road with a 20 mph speed limit, and it was parked. Is that person competent to drive? They were on the way to work and no alcohol was involved. Should that make a difference? Should the police give them a lighter ticket than they would if he had been drunk? He had a valid licence to hit a parked vehicle on a 20 mph residential road? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you would rather let anyone drive and pay the cost of accidents and injuries and deaths before sorting out who is really just plain incapable of driving safely and knowing their limits? Looks like a logical fallacy there RAZD, since you like pointing them out, I thought I'd do the same. I said:
quote: Which should let you know that I don't want the consequence you are warning of. If somebody said that we should spend $1billion dollars to enact a program to increase road safety, is somebody pointing out the costs a statement that they would rather road safety be lesser than spend money?
I had my van hit on a residential road with a 20 mph speed limit, and it was parked. Is that person competent to drive? Insufficient information to make a conclusion. Being competent and being perfect are miles apart.
They were on the way to work and no alcohol was involved. Should that make a difference? Yes. If they were drunk, that indicates that they are a higher risk to being involved in a further accident since they have shown themselves incapable of obeying the law. If they were on their way to work, their risk is greater due to the mileage they probably do, and they are more at risk for causing a collision than someone whose been driving 30 years with no incident...unless of course they have been driving 30 years, in which case it is most likely to be a one off incident. If the police believe they were driving without due care and attention they can prosecute, which may raise the insurance premiums, and further convictions can lead to suspension of their licence or an total ban on driving.
Should the police give them a lighter ticket than they would if he had been drunk? Yes. Hitting a parked vehicle is a very common incident type and usually causes only a small amount damage and injury is rare. When drunk, the driver is likely to react slower to the imminent collision and be driving much faster when it occurred. They have also been drunk for all of their journey, increasing the chance of having an serious accident in the first place (whereas they may have only been driving without due care for a short period).
He had a valid licence to hit a parked vehicle on a 20 mph residential road? Did he have licence to hit a parked car? No, he had licence to drive a vehicle. If he causes damage to another vehicle he is liable for the damages, and assuming he is insured can have his insurance company subrogate his liability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
alcohol is legal because not everyone who uses it abuses it.
the reason we have binge drinking in high schools and colleges is because children are raised in a culture of alcohol being this great evil. it's not. wine and beer used to be the only drink because water wasn't safe and couldn't be kept. if people raised their children to have a healthy respect for alcohol things would be different. but, just like sex, our puritan values are killing us. our government wasn't founded by puritans, but our culture was. as a result, we don't talk about sex, so we can't be responsible about pregancy and diseases, and we have all these bizarre prohibitions on alcohol which makes our children rebel and kill themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
attention deficit disorders do not prevent the person from paying attention. people with AD/HD are able to focus, just on multiple things at once. this makes it difficult to focus on something uninteresting, like a lecture or homework. this is only a problem in the classroom. it is obviously an adaptation for hunters to be able to focus not only on their prey but also something that might prey on them. back when our society was divided into hunters and gatherers, it was an important adaptation. a non-adapted person would get et (something like eaten but more je ne sais pas).
as a result, people with AD/HD should make better drivers as they are more able to concentrate on everything on the road. but then we'll never know who really has AD/HD and who really is a speed freak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
At the risk of drifting topic,
I couldn't find any study which would support the idea that drivers with ADHD should make better drivers. I found several that contradicted this idea.. It may well be an adaption, but I'm, not sure if the hunter vs farmer theory is concenus opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
bad drivers tend to be flighty, self-centered idiots. people with genuine AD/HD do not, by necessity, fall into this category.
i, however, am a bad driver because i have very low spacial reasoning and poor depth perception. but i'm still better than FUCKING EVERYONE ELSE in south florida hehe. but yes. back on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Holmes writes: The important thing is to move on and channel your energies into enjoying those other interests which you can handle, but some other poor slob cannot. And this will really sound cold-hearted, but in a way allowing others to drink and suffer as they will, is what gives everyone (including that person) concrete examples of why moderation is important. Laws are not as useful as lessons in life.
You're right, of course! But it can be kind of painful to see my own problems being replayed over and over again in so many individuals' and families' lives. Alcohol is often seen as "most people are able to enjoy it, a minority are unable to and have to steer clear from it". Well that's true as far as it goes, but when we have figures like "50% of domestic violence in France inolves alcohol use" it looks like there is a problem in more than than the minority of cases. "Alcoholism" itself is a technical term and you can define it how you like, almost certainly as a minority, but the problems exacerbated by alcohol use are far more common than people believe. To be honest I'm less concerned with the health consequences on alcoholics themselves than on the consequences on their families and communities. Anyway, I'm not sure where this is going now... Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Modulous writes: Omnivorous writes: No. Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. Agreed. Unacceptable behaviour would be things such as 'Brewing alcoholic beverages, selling alcoholic beverages, buying alcoholic beverages' Being drunk should be no more illegal than tripping on acid is now. In my book, unacceptable behavior would be such things as drunk driving or trippy flying. And are you telling me that acid is illegal?
Modulous writes: Ominvorous writes: Legalize everything: prohibition never works. Well, no. We can't legalize 'everything' - murder, theft and rape should remain prohibited! Agreed. My "everything" was intended in the context of recreational drug use--and I think you knew that and are tweaking my nose! To clarify: I have no problem with laws against drunk driving--or "drugged" driving in general, as well as the operation of any kind of potentially threatening machinery. That is precisely what I meant by saying that law and policy should address behavior, not states of consciousness. If an officer of the law suspects my garden salad was topped with magic mushrooms because I am smiling at flowers while singing quietly to myself in the park, he should just walk on by: I would be doing no harm. If that same officer observed me driving erratically, he should closely investigate the cause: if he spies a baggie of psilocybin or amanita mushrooms in the car (or an open bottle of whiskey), he should pursue his strong suspicion that I am driving under the influence of a powerful mind-altering drug, which is and should be illegal. If he observed me float from my flower bed and prepare to drive away, he should intervene in the name of public safety.
Modulous writes: Omnivorous writes: I will drink, smoke, inject, or swallow anything I damn well please, and the State (and my neighbors) can stay the hell out of my body and mind.
Damn straight. This is confused somewhat by medical costs for the resulting damage you can cause to yourself and the ethics of all of that... Do you wish to live in a society where every person's risk-taking is audited by the State? What a dreary world it would be if our liberties were circumscribed by the risk-costs that others will tolerate. It would spell the end of all adventure. Edit: "singly" to "singing" while sober as a judge, too. This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-26-2005 05:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
"50% of domestic violence in France inolves alcohol use" it looks like there is a problem in more than than the minority of cases. Be careful of stats. The above does not suggest to me what it does to you, and indeed perhaps the opposite. For alcohol to be a problem, the proper stat you'd want to see is that 50% of cases of alcohol use end up in domestic violence. The stat you gave suggests that those that are involved in domestic violence are split on whether they will use alcohol. One has to ask as well if those likely to engage in domestic violence may have other issues which will lead to drinking. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Drugs that are taken because one is "bored" are the most dangerous type. What you're supposed to do when you are bored is find something to do. And besides, "anxiety" is something that interferes with one's functioning in society. "Boredom" is a product of a lack of imagination. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-26-2005 05:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...or if you are talking on a cell phone. (yes, it really is just as bad as driving while drunk)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, let's pretend that there is a substance that was so addictive to all people that if anyone got a tiny whiff of it, they became 100% addicted to it and needed ever-increasing amounts of it their system 100% of the time or they became violently ill.
Can anyone deny that this would present a compelling issue to society, and strict control of this substance might be a good idea? At the very least, it certainly presents a problem to society. Alcohol is not addictive to all people; in fact, most people who drink are not addicted to alcohol. However, there is a substantial and widespread detrimental effect on society due to the consumption of alcohol. To say that alcoholism is "not society's problem" to to take an overly simplistic stance on the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I very much agree, but...
quote: 1) The wine and beer that used to be consumed back then was usually of a much lower alcohol content than is commercially available today. 2) During that time everybody was fuzzy-minded and partially soused a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024