Science Under Obama: Just Different Politics [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

04-28-2009, 17:50

And maybe worse for the lot of us: (http://www.reason.com/news/show/133101.html)

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama nominated Mothers Against Drunk Driving CEO Chuck Hurley to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Hurley's pending appointment is bad news for social drinkers, motorists, and anyone interested in freedom of movement and less hassle on the roadways. Hurley is an anti-alcohol zealot, and a longtime proponent of just about any highway regulation that's sold under the guise of public safety.
The whole article:

Putting MADD in Charge of America's Highways
President Obama's troubling nominee to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Radley Balko | April 24, 2009

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama nominated Mothers Against Drunk Driving CEO Chuck Hurley to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Hurley's pending appointment is bad news for social drinkers, motorists, and anyone interested in freedom of movement and less hassle on the roadways. Hurley is an anti-alcohol zealot, and a longtime proponent of just about any highway regulation that's sold under the guise of public safety. He's a supporter of primary seat belt laws, which allow police to pull motorists over solely for seat belt infractions. In addition to being a questionable use of law enforcement resources (people who don’t wear seat belts aren’t a threat to anyone other than themselves), primary seat belt laws have been criticized for giving police officers the pretext to engage in racial profiling, or to commit asset forfeiture abuse. Hurley has also supported the proliferation of red light cameras, despite studies showing that they're little more than revenue generators for local government, and may actually cause more accidents than they prevent.

Longtime automotive writer Eric Peters wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press that motorists have much to fear from a Hurley-led NHTSA, including a possible return to federally-mandated speed limits, a national blood alcohol count as low as .04, federally-mandated speed and red light cameras, and even the installation of GPS responders on vehicles for the possible implementation of future "pay as you go" driving taxes (Britain already keeps tabs on the whereabouts of every driver in the country).

But Hurley's record is most troubling when it comes to overly aggressive measures allegedly aimed at preventing drunken driving. MADD's top priority during Hurley's stint as CEO was to get state legislatures to pass laws mandating ignition interlock devices in the cars of all first-time DWI offenders. The device requires you to blow into a tube before starting your car, then blow again at set intervals as you’re driving (which, come to think of it, doesn't really seem all that safe). Under Hurley’s watch, MADD gave a “qualified endorsement” for bills in the New York and New Mexico legislatures that would have required the devices in all cars sold in those states. Fortunately, neither bill became law.

Hurley and MADD were also at the heart of the effort to force the states to adopt the .08 minimum blood alcohol standard back in the late 1990s, under penalty of losing federal highway funds for noncompliance. Studies show that both significant impairment and most DWI fatalities occur at much higher blood-alcohol concentrations.

Hurley has also aggressively pushed for the use of constitutionally-dubious roadblock sobriety checkpoints to enforce the new standard, even though there's convincing evidence these invasive tactics have actually made the roads more dangerous. DWI deaths began inching upward again as the roadblocks were implemented in the early 2000s. It isn't difficult to see why. Roadblocks are designed to catch motorists who aren't driving erratically enough to be caught with conventional law enforcement methods. The officers who staff them would otherwise be out on the streets, looking for actual drunks who pose an actual threat to highway safety.

With Hurley in charge, MADD’s goals will become NHTSA’s goals. That's troubling because at heart, MADD is an activist organization. The groups once-admirable goal of raising public awareness about drunk driving has over the last several years morphed into a zealous, evangelical teetotaling campaign. When a coalition of college presidents recently asked for nothing more than a new debate over the federal drinking age last year, for example, MADD called on parents to boycott the presidents' schools. MADD has supported prison sentences for parents who allow alcohol consumption at chaperoned parties for underage teens, and fought efforts to allow underage veterans to have a beer on base after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even MADD's founder, Candace Lightner, has renounced the group, calling them "neo-prohibitionists."

MADD is no longer merely a group of concerned mothers raising awareness. They've become very powerful, pushing for laws based on questionable data and that involve real trade-offs between safety, privacy, and individual freedom. That's what makes the organization's close relationship with the government so troubling. Hurley isn't the first MADD exec to make the jump to NHTSA—or the other way around. MADD regularly receives funding from the federal government. Members of MADD have even been known to help man and run sobriety checkpoints. MADD also runs many of the mandatory classes DWI convicts are forced to attend (and pay for).

Hurley would take NHTSA in a much more activist direction. States could expect to see more federal mandates about how they manage their roads, and motorists could expect expensive new mandatory safety add-ons to new vehicles; more reasons for to get pulled over; and lots more red light and speed cameras. NHTSA needs a director who will balance safety with freedom, who will look at data dispassionately, and who will consider unintended consequences before ushering in sweeping new policies.

Chuck Hurley isn't that person.

Won't it be lovely to have such a neo-prohibitionist zealot in the federal government, pushing for all sorts of new limits on our freedom? Oh, and MADD sucks too.

CR

Lemur

04-28-2009, 17:54

Wait, how does the NHTSA relate to science? Your headline confuses me ...

seireikhaan

04-28-2009, 18:01

Wait, how does the NHTSA relate to science? Your headline confuses me ...
Indeed, I was expecting something on global warming or some such.

Crazed Rabbit

04-28-2009, 18:06

Wait, how does the NHTSA relate to science? Your headline confuses me ...

Chuck Hurley is going to be pushing for all sorts of new regulations in his new capacity, based on dubious and biased science (MADD manages to find data indicating every state, no matter their drunk driving trends, should pass interlock ignition laws, for example.)

CR

rory_20_uk

04-28-2009, 18:10

Raging against drink driving - the imposition of the centuary...

I am all for having low levels of alcohol for driving, and for severe penalties for those that do. Lisence lost on first offence, car impounded and sold. Have to re-sit driving test after a decent ban.

There really is no excuse, barring fleeing a natural disaster.

I don't care how much you drink. Just get a Taxi, or get lashed at home.
Take Heroin whilst you're at it. Want a spliff? Fine with me.

Just Don't Do It Before Driving!

I don't care if you kill yourself, I do care if you kill others.

Speed cameras are not evil. They enforce the law. I'd be happy to have speed limits of 100mph in the outside lane of motorways. Idiots driving at 40mph in residental areas should be severely punished.

~:smoking:

seireikhaan

04-28-2009, 18:13

Hurley isn't the first MADD exec to make the jump to NHTSA
:coffeenews:

Ironside

04-28-2009, 18:23

Wait, how does the NHTSA relate to science? Your headline confuses me ...

Somewere around when people flying around in a crash won't smash into the front seat or continuing through the next car's windshield after flying through your own.

With that said, it's generally not good putting activists in charge of goverment bodies, but this article isn't the best one to show it (there's more than one questionable statement in there).

JAG

04-28-2009, 18:51

Sasaki Kojiro

04-28-2009, 18:59

So, let me get this right - Obama is pursuing bad science, by wanting to reduce drink driving, one of the most utterly disgusting and selfish acts any person behind a wheel can ever take.

CR, you have lost it mate.

Bush authorized torture, wanting to get information about terrorist attacks, one of the most utterly disgusting and selfish acts any person can ever take.
:driver:

It's quite legitimate to question someones methods of reducing an evil. The piece posted seems something of a smear piece. I don't know much about this dude.

Rhyfelwyr

04-28-2009, 19:02

Wow... lefties arguing against the conservative because he is complaining about a prohibitionist getting into a government position.

The world is turning upside down! :dizzy2:

Lemur

04-28-2009, 20:03

Just FYI, here's an actual article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17037-obama-vows-to-increase-funding-for-basic-science.html) about Obama and science policy.

Don Corleone

04-28-2009, 21:18

I think for a long time, drunk-driving laws were very useful. The USA doesn't have the relationship with alcohol that most European countries do, but there is enough consumption to justify concern. Considered in the context of our car-culture, however, it became a formula for disaster. We have essentially no public transportion anyplace outside of 12 major metro areas, in which only about 30% of our population lives.

For the other 70%, there simply is no alternative. People say "take a taxi". Really? After two beers? When the taxi will cost a rough average of $60US (~45Euro or ~35BP). What, you say? After two beers? Don't be such an alarmist, nobody is talking about that...

Aaah, but most states, in the process of reining in DWI offenses, got addicted to all those fines and penalties coming into their coffers. As the DWI offense rates have fallen, state legislators seeking to close budget shortfalls, have continued to lower the limit. In every state in the US, the legal limit is .08 BAC per se. For the average individual, this means 2 drinks, and you can be convicted of DUI. In many states, you can be convicted of a lesser charge which will still have your license, albeit for a shorter time, for ANY alcohol in your system. That's right folks, better forgo the cough medicine if you're planning on driving home from work tonight.

If you actuall have those two beers, you'll have your license pulled for 6 months, pay thousands of dollars in fines and penalties, suffer a conviction, and in some states, lose your automobile. If you can get auto insurance at all, which is mandatory for all drivers in the US, you'll easily see your rates explode to 400% to 500% of what they were.

My (granted, conspriatorial) theory on why Democrats, who tend to posture themselves as "for the good-times guys", are behind such tough drunk driving laws? These laws lead to urbanization. Democrats may be in favor of good-times, but they're even more in favor of ending suburbs and having everyone move back into the cities. Impossible drunk driving laws are one lever to help move that boulder up the hill...

Tribesman

04-28-2009, 22:34

The USA doesn't have the relationship with alcohol that most European countries do
Thats not surprising when you consider many of the brands of pisswater that passes for beer over there .

Don Corleone

04-28-2009, 22:37

Hey, we make good beer. We just don't tell you about it. Sam Adams, Pete's Wicked, Anchor Steam, Sierra Nevada, Shocktop.... all great beers you've never heard of we enjoy regularly.

Tribesman

04-28-2009, 22:57

all great beers you've never heard of
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Consider who you are addressing Don

Ice

04-28-2009, 23:34

Thats not surprising when you consider many of the brands of pisswater that passes for beer over there .

*sigh*... yeah

Marshal Murat

04-29-2009, 00:01

Drunk Driving is bad, there's no doubt about it. So it's practically impossible for someone to say "We shouldn't do such & such" because then they're "lax" on drunk driving, encouraging the deaths of thousands of teenagers, etc. etc. etc.

Currently, the drinking laws in the U.S. aren't effectively curbing drunk-driving. If anything, having the age set at 21 seems to not take into account the fact that TEENAGERS DRINK. They drink in High School, they drink in College. It's simply part of the culture (at least around here) that in college one plays beer-pong and chugs down whatever seems the most alcoholic.

Crazed Rabbit

04-29-2009, 03:40

So, let me get this right - Obama is pursuing bad science, by wanting to reduce drink driving, one of the most utterly disgusting and selfish acts any person behind a wheel can ever take.

CR, you have lost it mate.

MADD stopped trying to reduce drunk driving long ago, and have for a while now been trying to get people thrown in jail for drinking one drink before driving. They've been pushing for all sorts of state intrusion, that has not helped lower the drunk driving rate.

And the thing is, the way this guy is going to 'reduce drunk driving' is not based on science, as highlighted in the article I posted.

Here's another editorial, by the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/24/madd-about-regulation-obama-chauffeurs-the-nanny-s/).

The nation's traffic-safety czar has broad powers to control the roads and road-going habits of Americans. Mr. Hurley has a history of pushing laws that harass millions of law-abiding citizens to ensnare a few lawbreakers. He supports returning the 55 mph speed limit to our highways as well as roadblocks and random pullovers to make sure drivers aren't doing anything wrong. This methodology is based on a presumption of guilt - not innocence - of the average driver who is doing nothing wrong.

Mr. Hurley has promoted a mania of overregulation at MADD. Absent from his advocacies is the principle that a punishment should fit the crime, or that a crime even needs to be committed to incur a penalty. Under this influence, MADD has been lobbying to lower the allowable blood-alcohol content (BAC) for drivers to .04 - which means one glass of Pinot can land anyone behind bars. We do not condone drinking and driving, but the constant lowering of BAC limits has separated what is punishable from what is actually dangerous.

MADD are the type of idiots who get outraged over Marines under 21 being able to drink before or after they go on a tour of duty. They've pushed for, and gotten, laws allowing cops to take blood samples from suspected drunk drivers, for roadblocks on public roads so cops can stop everyone.

A large part of the NHTSA 'Alcohol Related Fatalities' occur when the driver isn't intoxicated at all.

MADD was also instrumental in pushing the 21 year old standard for booze. It's stupid, pigheaded, ignorant of the facts, hasn't helped, has lead to more dangerous drinking, etc. (http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i31/31a03501.htm) That's the kind of scientific 'reasoning' this MADD CEO will bring to the federal government.

MADD wants to lower the already low BAC level of .08 to .04, based on 'science'.

Or look at this 60 minutes video (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4819332n), where the parents of a college teen dead from alcohol poisoning believe their son might be alive if the drinking age was 18 and the fraternity he was drinking at didn't have to worry about admitting they broke the law when they called the hospital.

CR

Lemur

04-29-2009, 04:09

Strange, last I'd heard there was a movement afoot (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/19/20080819drinking-age0819.html) to lower the drinking age to 18.

Crazed Rabbit

04-29-2009, 04:31

Yea, and guess who rabidly opposes that? (http://www.madd.org/Media-Center/Media-Center/Press-Releases/Press-Releases/2008/Some-University-Presidents-Shirk-Responsibility-to.aspx)

Really, I don't see how those sane College Presidents repudiate my point at all.

CR

Lemur

04-29-2009, 04:38

Whoa, easy there, CR, I wasn't trying to "repudiate" anything, just referencing something I'd read that pertains to the topic. Personally, I think the drinking age should be done away with entirely. Let us parents sort it out, thank you very much.

Crazed Rabbit

04-29-2009, 04:45

Don't worry, I'm quite relaxed. I guess I've just read so much about the College initiative I thought it was common knowledge or something.

Funny how so often "It's for the children!" is used to take our freedoms.

CR

Lemur

04-29-2009, 04:47

When a politician mentions "children," "family" or "marriage," it's best to check to make sure your wallet is still in your pocket.

P.S.: Fortunately I live in a state where it's legit to let your children have a drink if you are with them. This seems to common-sensical that I'm sure it will be struck from the books shortly. (And I still don't entirely understand how this is a "science" thread ....)

Sasaki Kojiro

04-29-2009, 05:41

(And I still don't entirely understand how this is a "science" thread ....)

Whoa, easy there lemur! No need to get worked up.
:driver:

promoting an a person who takes emotional arguments over scientific ones...you see the similarity to opposing, say, stem cell research on moral grounds?

Xiahou

04-29-2009, 06:30

P.S.: Fortunately I live in a state where it's legit to let your children have a drink if you are with them. This seems to common-sensical that I'm sure it will be struck from the books shortly.Wait, that sounds too sensible to be true.... are you sure about this? :inquisitive:

promoting an a person who takes emotional arguments over scientific ones...you see the similarity to opposing, say, stem cell research on moral grounds? Could be wrong here, but I think that was what CR was driving at. Democrats accused Republicans of putting politics ahead of science, now he's saying that Democrats are doing the same thing. :idea2:

Crazed Rabbit

04-29-2009, 07:50

Yup, Sasaki's got it. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

04-29-2009, 13:00

Mothers Against Drunk Driving CEO Chuck Hurley to head up the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)Brilliant! Let MADD impose its ideas on the NHTSA. :2thumbsup:

Alcohol and driving are killers. Both have a level of abuse so staggeringly high it beggars belief. Both are way up on my list of biggest social problems. As for the combination of the two...I don't even know what to say.

As for mad science behind MADD, I don't know. Haven't read up about the specifics. Too much science in the US is political, all US science will be accused of being political because of polarization. Science in America is like a mafia forum game - a big swampy mess where discovering truths is reduced to finding out who says what and what for.

Lemur

04-29-2009, 16:35

Wait, that sounds too sensible to be true.... are you sure about this? :inquisitive:
Yup, it's legal for me to give my little lemurlings shots. I can even order them brewskis at the local pub. Looks like various politicians have been trying to strip it from the books ... for the children! Don't you want to protect the children?

Wis. Lawmaker Wants to Stop Minors from Drinking with Parents (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2003/wis-lawmaker-wants-to-stop.html)

Rep. John Ainsworth (R-Shawano) wants to change a Wisconsin law that allows children to consume alcoholic drinks at bars as long as their parents are present, the Associated Press reported Aug. 20.

Ainsworth's bill would only allow individuals age 18 and older to drink in bars if accompanied by a parent or guardian.

The legal drinking age in Wisconsin is 21, but the current law permits parents to take their children to a bar and serve them alcohol, regardless of their age.

Husar

04-29-2009, 17:14

What surprises me the most is that "Chuck Hurley" is apparently a mother. :inquisitive:

Banquo's Ghost

04-29-2009, 18:16

Yup, it's legal for me to give my little lemurlings shots. I can even order them brewskis at the local pub. Looks like various politicians have been trying to strip it from the books ... for the children! Don't you want to protect the children?

Wis. Lawmaker Wants to Stop Minors from Drinking with Parents (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2003/wis-lawmaker-wants-to-stop.html)

Rep. John Ainsworth (R-Shawano) wants to change a Wisconsin law that allows children to consume alcoholic drinks at bars as long as their parents are present, the Associated Press reported Aug. 20.

Ainsworth's bill would only allow individuals age 18 and older to drink in bars if accompanied by a parent or guardian.

The legal drinking age in Wisconsin is 21, but the current law permits parents to take their children to a bar and serve them alcohol, regardless of their age.

My initial and instinctive reaction to the freedom cited is that it is very sensible, and mirrors the European model where (in most cases) parental responsibility for accustoming children to alcohol is a good thing.

Sadly, next to the article you linked to there is a sidebar that leads to this:

Wisconsin is the state most affected by alcohol. (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2008/wisconsin-is-state-most.html)

Wisconsin has some of the lowest alcohol prices in the U.S. (the beer tax hasn't been raised since 1969), and 17,500 bars, taverns and stores licensed to sell alcohol. The state also has the highest rates of binge drinking and alcoholism in the country. The alcohol industry employs more than 200,000 people in the state, but 320 Wisconsin residents died in drunk-driving crashes last year.

Which rather puts a hole beneath the waterline, I fear.

Xiahou

04-29-2009, 18:24

My initial and instinctive reaction to the freedom cited is that it is very sensible, and mirrors the European model where (in most cases) parental responsibility for accustoming children to alcohol is a good thing.

Sadly, next to the article you linked to there is a sidebar that leads to this:

Wisconsin is the state most affected by alcohol. (http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2008/wisconsin-is-state-most.html)

Wisconsin has some of the lowest alcohol prices in the U.S. (the beer tax hasn't been raised since 1969), and 17,500 bars, taverns and stores licensed to sell alcohol. The state also has the highest rates of binge drinking and alcoholism in the country. The alcohol industry employs more than 200,000 people in the state, but 320 Wisconsin residents died in drunk-driving crashes last year.

Which rather puts a hole beneath the waterline, I fear.Jointogether.org is clearly an advocacy group and the information they cite stinks of bias:
The Appleton Post-Crescent reported July 6 that the analysis included 10 key measures of each state's drinking culture, including price, availability, consumption, and related criminal-justice, social and health impacts of use.In other words, because Wisconsin has alcohol that is cheap and widely available- even to children -they're already setup to be "the worst" just by the design of the study. I don't find that compelling.

Similarly, they state 320 drunken driving deaths.... Ok, how many is that per capita? And how does that compare to states with more strict alcohol controls? All too often, this is how advocacy groups push bad legislation- distorting data and showing problems in a vacuum with no perspective.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-29-2009, 18:27

I agree...I did a quick google and another website cited a study that showed different results entirely. North dakota was the top, and wisconsin wasn't in the top 10.

I remember on Jerry Springer once they had a couple from ohio on who got married so that they could drink in a bar together (husband was under age). Lol. I guess we have a similar law on the books.

drone

04-29-2009, 19:56

Wisconsin has cheap beer because every German and his brother started a brewery there when they immigrated to the state. It's got a very large proportion of German descendants, so the brewing tradition (and the politics that go with it) are strong. This is probably the reason for the law, as well as the sensible logic behind it.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 10:00

Just so everyone is clear: If there were a state that totally banned the sale or possession of all forms of alcoholic drinks, I would move there immediately. I find alcohol to be one of the most destructive and addictive substances to poison one's body with and destroy one's mind with. If I were to hate inanimate things, I would hate alcoholic drinks and other forms of addictive drugs. I hate what it does to people and I hate how people just shrug and say "calm down dude... most people can handle it so that makes it OK". And of course, gun-control... how can I be for the banning of alcohol but not guns? Answer: Guns don't intoxicate you. I applaud any crackdown whatsoever on alcohol... because I don't care about your "freedom" to drive anymore once you drink and get behind the wheel. I don't care if you could kill someone or if you have or if you haven't... you decided voluntarily to drink, you decided voluntarily to drive. At that point, you're basically guilty of attempted murder in my mind.

I am extreme on very few of my political positions, but alcohol plus driving turns me into a zealot. I am proudly, unflinchingly, an anti-alcohol zealot. I don't hide how much I despise it.

See, I'm fine with things like pot, if it were in your house and you didn't drive. What you do in your home is your business. If you drank at home, that's also your business. But once you go out of your home to smoke pot or drink alcohol, and you start driving... I get pretty pissed off. Now it becomes a danger to the community, and someone's little boy or girl can get run over by your vehicle, and it happens every day. Someone loses a life due to someone else's obsession with poisoning their own brain. You want to drink, dope, smoke, or commit suicide... that's in the same category as consensual sex. Do it in your own home, I don't care. Do it in public, and it becomes MY problem. And I don't want to wave your smoke out of my face, deal with the dead bodies you run over, have to avoid accidentally getting stabbed by an AIDS-covered needle, or get hit by a body that jumped off of a building, or have to look at your nasty parts. Do things in your own home, I don't care. Do it in public, and I care. It becomes my business and intrudes on my rights and freedoms, and we have a right to regulate it. I only really draw the line at child abuse, spousal abuse, child porn, and murder, etc... maybe the really big drug traffickers too. Otherwise I don't really care.

Alcohol is something that is sold at bars, where people go drive to, get hammered, and then drive home. It's completely :daisy: stupid. it takes someone who doesn't drink to point out how completely stupid that is. It's like filling a pillow with sharp knives and complaining when someone gets hurt... DUH. IF you MUST have your precious alcohol, how about a taxi service which delivers the beer to your home... or delivers YOU to your home, so you NEVER drink and drive or transport alcohol anywhere. I'd be fine with that.

Or, if you MUST keep things basically as they are, how about this law: You get pulled over by a cop, and you are in possession of an open container of alcohol, or if you fail a breathalyzer test, you get your license revoked forever. Forever. And, if you ever commit a crime while drunk or are drunk in public, you lose your legal right to drink alcohol, forever, under penalty of prison time if you get caught again. So, doing the above open-container thing... you lose the right to drive and you lose the right to drink, FOREVER. And you must apply for a license to drink in the first place, and you cannot purchase alcohol unless you have your card on you. Unfair? Oh believe me... you don't want me writing the laws. I consider myself to be flexible that I'd even entertain the idea of drinking legally at all. Personally I'd prefer to live in an alcohol-free community. If there ever is one, sign me up.

Zealot... total anti-drinking zealot. That's me.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 10:19

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 10:31

Kinda agree. I cannot think of something more selfish then driving when you are intoxicated. If you are drunk and you drive there should be dire consequences when caught, losing the right to drive a car for life dunno, for 10 years? Sounds good.

I think we already have some stiff penalties on drunk driving, seriously. But they aren't getting through to people.

It should be mandatory that all schools make their students complete a three-week (ballpark) course on drunk driving and how much you will be penalized for it. I think that you must have zero drinking-related offenses on your license or you lose it permanently. I think that you should have to apply for a license to both sell, or CONSUME, alcohol. You shouldn't automatically get it at 21. And you must never commit a drinking-related offense or you lose that license permanently.

I seriously would have a zero tolerance policy. And if that didn't work, we could outlaw it just like heroin. I think heroin kills fewer people anyway. Let's go with the sheer numbers of deaths that I don't consider accidental because it involves voluntary and illegal behavior. Car accidents are one thing, if you're driving legally and someone makes an honest mistake... that's life.

Drinking and driving makes me, a non-violent man, want to scream and hit things.

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 10:44

MADD stopped trying to reduce drunk driving long ago, and have for a while now been trying to get people thrown in jail for drinking one drink before driving.

Good. We have a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving here in Norway, and I'm very happy about it. The limit is 0.20, which in practical terms means 0, the 0.20 is a safety margin. You should not, under any circumstance, have a beer and then drive. My standard procedure is to wait 2-3 hours after one beer before driving.

So, taxi's are too expensive and there's no bus? Get a friend to pick you up, geez!(that's what I do, or I leave the car and walk) Still no reason at all to be getting behind the wheel. Sorry.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 10:44

Friend of mine could choose between a heavy fine or watching footage from car-accidents for two hours, he chose the latter, cured him forever.

Good. We have a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving here in Norway, and I'm very happy about it. The limit is 0.20, which in practical terms means 0, the 0.20 is a safety margin. You should not, under any circumstance, have a beer and then drive.

You can have 2 or 3 here depending on your size, but getting caught when driving drunk isn't something you bring up at party's it's a big no.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 10:50

Good. We have a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving here in Norway, and I'm very happy about it. The limit is 0.20, which in practical terms means 0, the 0.20 is a safety margin. You should not, under any circumstance, have a beer and then drive. My standard procedure is to wait 2-3 hours after one beer before driving.

So, taxi's are too expensive and there's no bus? Get a friend to pick you up, geez!(that's what I do, or I leave the car and walk) Still no reason at all to be getting behind the wheel. Sorry.

I hate the cold, but you are actively convincing me I need to move to Norway.

By the way, I thought it was 0.02, not 0.20 in Norway, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Limits_by_country_.28BAC:_Blood_Alcohol_Content.29).

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 11:03

I hate the cold, but you are actively convincing me I need to move to Norway.

By the way, I thought it was 0.02, not 0.20 in Norway, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Limits_by_country_.28BAC:_Blood_Alcohol_Content.29).

Yeah, but we skip a 0 and call it 0.20 here, no idea why. Probably inbreeding.

But if you're not a fan of alcohol, I doubt you'll like it here... We have an extreme binge-drinking culture here, we're not sipping wine like the French, we get completely drunk. And we treat people who don't like to get hammered with extreme suspicion and prejudice. I suffer from the same prejudice, whenever I hear about someone who only drinks a little, I think to myself "what's up with him? A mild form of retardation, or something?". The way to get accepted here is to get drunk with us...

Good timing on this thread, the high school graduation celebration kicked off a week ago - 3-4 weeks of almost constant drinking... I think I had 4-5 sober days during mine.

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 11:03

Maybe I am wrong, but one of the problems with drink driving is that once you are drunk, you don't really know what you are doing. And you know that there will be that risk when you are still sober. That's why anyone who goes to a pub and gives themselves acess to a vehicle is just as criminal as the person who actually drink drives. Unless the person is absolutedly sure they will not be having more than one beer, they should never drink while having access to a vehicle.

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 11:05

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 11:06

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 11:06

I'm usually drunk with my car keys, as I usually drive to the (pre-)party. Never taken the car back home.

Maybe its your culture or its just ingrained into you, in which case good on you. For some reason, we do not have that in the UK despite our own binge-drinking culture.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 11:08

Yeah, but we skip a 0 and call it 0.20 here, no idea why. Probably inbreeding.

But if you're not a fan of alcohol, I doubt you'll like it here... We have an extreme binge-drinking culture here, we're not sipping wine like the French, we get completely drunk. And we treat people who don't like to get hammered with extreme suspicion and prejudice. I suffer from the same prejudice, whenever I hear about someone who only drinks a little, I think to myself "what's up with him? A mild form of retardation, or something?". The way to get accepted here is to get drunk with us...

Good timing on this thread, the high school graduation celebration kicked off a week ago - 3-4 weeks of almost constant drinking... I think I had 4-5 sober days during mine.

I've tasted many different forms of alcohol, from the wimpiest wine to a strong beer. I hate all of them, and cannot stand the smell, let alone the taste, which is far worse.

Some people don't like the taste. No big whoop. But I've seen the way people act when they are on the stuff and I think to myself: "what's up with him? A mild form of retardation, or something?" but then I realize, he's not retarded, it's a conscious choice to be like that, and that's even more terrifying to me.

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 11:11

I've tasted many different forms of alcohol, from the wimpiest wine to a strong beer. I hate all of them, and cannot stand the smell, let alone the taste, which is far worse.

Some people don't like the taste. No big whoop. But I've seen the way people act when they are on the stuff and I think to myself: "what's up with him? A mild form of retardation, or something?" but then I realize, he's not retarded, it's a conscious choice to be like that, and that's even more terrifying to me.

Don't take it the wrong way mate, I meant no offense ~;)

It's silly, but it's true. Abstinent people are viewed with suspicion here. No idea why. Again, probably inbreeding.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 11:11

Glad we don't have that binge-thing here, I was amazed last time I was in England, they aren't drunk they are barely alive. It's considered to be bad taste to be drunk here, have a drink fine but you will only be frowned upon if you have too much of it.

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 11:47

Yeah the hordes of chavdom contribute a lot to our binge-drinking culture, especially up here in Scotland.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 11:52

Abstinent people are viewed with suspicion here

They are viewed similarly here. I swear, every time someone offers me a drink and I say no thank you, it looks as though I've just shnat an elephant with three heads all over their carpet. And they also act like they can't talk to me or socialize in any way with me now that I've revealed my terrible, terrible secret. :no: People with alcohol in their systems are surprisingly uptight about people not drinking. I thought it was supposed to help you relax and let down your hang-ups. I'm perfectly comfortable talking to people who drink or smoke or are even pot-heads, I don't care, I don't judge. The only time I care is when you do stuff that's a danger to the community. Drink all you like, just don't drive. And, live and let live, I'll even volunteer to move away and let you drink in peace. Find me an alcohol-free zone and I am gone, baby!

It's not out of hate; it's because some of you drinkers can't handle your drinks. Most of you can't, even you casual drinkers. Maybe you don't drink and drive but sometimes you do act like jerks or you go home with a jerk and accidentally spread a disease or get pregnant over poor judgment thanks to precious alcohol; the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. :clown: I abstain from all forms of drinking or drug abuse, I don't gamble or sleep with prostitutes nor do I sleep around. I refrain from many things I believe are unhealthy. I'm a really, really fun guy. You all should meet me and see how lame I am. But guess what? I'm very, very happy; I have a girlfriend, a welcoming community of friends to talk to, plenty of interests and hobbies, a safe place to stay and delicious food to eat and I'm in relatively good health... alcohol isn't something I miss or look forward to. It's easy to enjoy life without it.

You don't drink? Why?
Same answer for:
You don't use mayonnaise? Why?

Don't like it. Think it smells and tastes nasty. Happy without it, even after trying it several times to "fit in". You know something? I fit in just fine. Some people need to "fit in" with the non-drinkers. LOL Is it any small wonder I want to live in an alcohol-free paradise? It's not me who doesn't know how to coexist with people responsibly, it's the ones who obsess over alcohol and think other people need to drink to fit in. That's some of the more ridiculous stuff I've heard since elementary school, where people would let you "fit in" with them, but only if you dressed a certain way or listened to certain music or put gum in people's hair. Thought we had outgrown that.

This rant brought to you by the letters A, T, P, and G, and the number 0.00 for BAC.

Husar

05-02-2009, 13:26

For me alcohol mostly uhm increases the likelihood that I uhm tell you more about my own personal history but that's about it in terms of harming others. :sweatdrop:
I've harmed more people when sober than I did when drunk.

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 13:34

As for myself, I'm a very, very happy drunk. And so are my friends.

I don't get mean, I don't get evil. I get happy. Very happy.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 14:35

I don't do drunk, few beers or some wine but untill a certain point, being drunk sucks.

ICantSpellDawg

05-02-2009, 14:37

Drinking is fun, Driving is fun. Drinking and driving is double fun.

TeeHee.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-02-2009, 16:07

They are viewed similarly here. I swear, every time someone offers me a drink and I say no thank you, it looks as though I've just shnat an elephant with three heads all over their carpet. And they also act like they can't talk to me or socialize in any way with me now that I've revealed my terrible, terrible secret. :no: People with alcohol in their systems are surprisingly uptight about people not drinking. I thought it was supposed to help you relax and let down your hang-ups.

Well, if you say "I don't like mayonaisse" people know that you don't care that they do like it. Saying that you don't like alcohol is similar to saying that you're a vegan. Not just a dietary choice--most people who abstain from alcohol are either ex-alcoholics or have a chip on their shoulder about alcohol use. They assume you are looking at them and thinking "what a drunken retard", simply because many people do that.

I don't know anyone who liked the taste of alcohol when they started, it's an acquired taste. Like spicy food. Some people have super-taste buds and pretty much don't like it no matter what though.

My personal rule for drunk driving is: wait until you KNOW you can drive, then wait an hour...works pretty well. I don't think zero-tolerance policies are the answer, people who drive drunk are already risking their own life. Education and public transportation.

ICantSpellDawg

05-02-2009, 16:31

Well, if you say "I don't like mayonaisse" people know that you don't care that they do like it. Saying that you don't like alcohol is similar to saying that you're a vegan. Not just a dietary choice--most people who abstain from alcohol are either ex-alcoholics or have a chip on their shoulder about alcohol use. They assume you are looking at them and thinking "what a drunken retard", simply because many people do that.

I don't know anyone who liked the taste of alcohol when they started, it's an acquired taste. Like spicy food. Some people have super-taste buds and pretty much don't like it no matter what though.

My personal rule for drunk driving is: wait until you KNOW you can drive, then wait an hour...works pretty well. I don't think zero-tolerance policies are the answer, people who drive drunk are already risking their own life. Education and public transportation.

I can't drink anymore because of illnesses, but it was great fun. I always disliked the taste of everything except soco and and vodka. I don't understand alchoholics, though.

Everybody has to be a buzzkill about booze. I used to be straight edge and depressed, then I started drinking in High school and started enjoying life more. Now I don't drink and still enjoy life. Tie the connections where you will.

Teetotallers are only cool if they do it to exhibit control over themselves or if they get sick from booze. It ia a historically fun thing to do and brings us closer to our ancestors.

Drinking and driving is pretty dumb, but I don't hold much moral indignation for it. Dumb, dangerous, etc, but get off your high horses.It's only an aweful thing because people cross the road and drive at night and increasing numbers coupled with proximity make it ourtageosly dangerous. Beh - I've got other problems and drunk driving aint one.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 16:56

Drinking and driving is pretty dumb, but I don't hold much moral indignation for it.

Oh? That, I really don't understand

I can't drink anymore because of illnesses

que wut?

lars573

05-02-2009, 17:54

que wut?
Drug interactions prolly.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 19:15

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-02-2009, 19:53

~snip

This rant brought to you by the letters A, T, P, and G, and the number 0.00 for BAC.

That's weird. I don't drink either, because of the taste.

:hide:

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 20:04

That's weird. I don't drink either, because of the taste.

:hide:

Guild Wars, Episode VI: The return of ATPG

Askthepizzaguy: TosaInu never told you what happened to your father.

Alexander the Pretty Good: He told me enough. He told me you killed him.

Askthepizzaguy: No, I am your father.

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00191/Darth_Vader__kostym_191646a.jpg

ATPG :shakehands: AtPG

You can barely tell us apart. :grin:

Sasaki Kojiro

05-02-2009, 20:08

If alcohol is just another normal thing to partake in, then saying "I don't like alcohol" should be similar to "I don't like mayonnaise" or even "I don't smoke, thank you". If I think "what a drunken retard", I wouldn't be talking to them when they were drinking and offering me a drink. My girlfriend drinks and smokes, I don't do either of those things. I don't think she's a drunken idiot. Personal choice.

If they make a big DEAL out of me not drinking, that's when I think... what a drunken retard.

How is alcohol like mayonaisse? It's one of the primary social activities of our culture. I don't understand your surprise. It's similar to saying "I don't watch movies" or "I don't listen to music". It's something almost everyone enjoys and they feel like you are missing out. I know many people who have been firmly anti-alcohol and ended up loving it. Same with other drugs.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 20:11

How is alcohol like mayonaisse? It's one of the primary social activities of our culture. I don't understand your surprise. It's similar to saying "I don't watch movies" or "I don't listen to music". It's something almost everyone enjoys and they feel like you are missing out. I know many people who have been firmly anti-alcohol and ended up loving it. Same with other drugs.

A LOT of people eat mayonnaise too. If that doesn't quite cut the mustard.... :clown:

Use my non-smoking example. Someone can offer me a smoke, and I can say "I don't smoke", in spite of how popular smoking is. That doesn't in any way imply that I think someone is evil for smoking. Everyone who enjoys cigarettes probably at one point wanted to share with the whole world how wonderful it is. Someone who enjoys marijuana probably feels the same way. Alcohol is a drug, people are allowed to say "no" to it and, hopefully, not be looked at like a leper.

ICantSpellDawg

05-02-2009, 20:16

When I drink I get dehydrated and throw up for 12 hours straight and can't move, then I have to go to the hospital and get hooked up to a saline drip 1 out of 3 times it happens. I used to bounce back before the adrenal failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addison's_disease) pretty much screwed me up the poop shoot. Drinking isn't worth it because I also have a liver disease (although the most symptom free period of my life I pounded booze like a stud.) and Ulcerative Colitis which can be "irritating" to say the least.

I miss the days of getting blasted and breaking the law, though.

JFK had my Adrenal Cortex disease and, it turns out, my ulcertive colitis (I wouldn't be suprised if he hd PSC too) (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/JFK+and+Addisons+Disease.htm)

Walter Payton had my liver disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Payton)

To look at me you'd never know it, which is pretty cool. All those illnesses would make me think of Stephen Hawking or something.

I wan't Obama to cure me and give me money.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 20:21

Breaking the law for giddy thrills: Teetotaler edition

Once made love on a public beach at night (long stretch of isolated Gulf of Mexico-side beach... no one ever goes there. Was a winding road with beach on both sides of it) and once ran down the street completely naked because someone dared me to do so.

...Strange that all my thrilling activities involve me naked. Perhaps I should have kept this to myself. :shocked::embarassed:

Strike For The South

05-02-2009, 20:25

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 20:42

ATPG is a famous man

http://www.jokes.com/funny/jim+gaffigan/jim-gaffigan--why-don-t-you-drink-

I like the booze and dislike the sober ones. There "holier than thou attitude" is what gets them. The more they say they don't have one the more they do.

How can you not like beer? Tastes good and gets you laid. It's a win win

Yes, like Carlos Mencia, I steal comedian's material. Or, since I don't make money off of this, I "reference" their material.

Holier than thou is hardly my attitude though. I am dating someone who both drinks and smokes. My parents drank and smoke. My close friends drink and smoke. My dislike of the taste of alcohol (people are admitting it's an acquired taste... well I can't drink enough of it to "acquire" that taste...) is a personal matter of taste, not a big moral statement. You can be moral and drink.

I have also "laid" every woman I've ever been with without a single drop of alcohol in my system. I think it's actually more honest and flattering that I don't require being intoxicated to find them attractive, but that's just my opinion. I don't mind people enjoying things in a responsible manner... it's the drinking and driving which proves they are irresponsible. Driving "buzzed" is the same thing as driving drunk, just to a lesser degree, and it's just as irresponsible. At least when you're really drunk, you might notice it, and intentionally drive really really slow. When you're lightly buzzed you can't really tell the difference, or so people tell me. Then you drive normally and your reflexes are dulled and bam... accident.

That's my big complaint. The fact that most people who drink treat me like a pariah because I don't is beside the point, but it would be nice if they didn't.

Strike For The South

05-02-2009, 20:46

Yes, like Carlos Mencia, I steal comedian's material. Or, since I don't make money off of this, I "reference" their material.

Holier than thou is hardly my attitude though. I am dating someone who both drinks and smokes. My parents drank and smoke. My close friends drink and smoke. My dislike of the taste of alcohol (people are admitting it's an acquired taste... well I can't drink enough of it to "acquire" that taste...) is a personal matter of taste, not a big moral statement. You can be moral and drink.

I have also "laid" every woman I've ever been with without a single drop of alcohol in my system. I think it's actually more honest and flattering that I don't require being intoxicated to find them attractive, but that's just my opinion. I don't mind people enjoying things in a responsible manner... it's the drinking and driving which proves they are irresponsible. Driving "buzzed" is the same thing as driving drunk, just to a lesser degree, and it's just as irresponsible. At least when you're really drunk, you might notice it, and intentionally drive really really slow. When you're lightly buzzed you can't really tell the difference, or so people tell me. Then you drive normally and your reflexes are dulled and bam... accident.

That's my big complaint. The fact that most people who drink treat me like a pariah because I don't is beside the point, but it would be nice if they didn't.

We can't all be good looking sweetiepie. Besides, drunk intercourse is exciting.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-02-2009, 20:47

A LOT of people eat mayonnaise too. If that doesn't quite cut the mustard.... :clown:

Use my non-smoking example. Someone can offer me a smoke, and I can say "I don't smoke", in spite of how popular smoking is. That doesn't in any way imply that I think someone is evil for smoking. Everyone who enjoys cigarettes probably at one point wanted to share with the whole world how wonderful it is. Someone who enjoys marijuana probably feels the same way. Alcohol is a drug, people are allowed to say "no" to it and, hopefully, not be looked at like a leper.

The point isn't whether you are allowed to say no, it's "why would you"?

People urge teetotalers to drink because they are missing out. Mix vodka with lemonade if you don't like the taste. Or acquire the taste like you did most other foods.

It's not that people treat you like a leper, it's that you're rejecting the chosen activity of the group for what they think is a silly reason.

Yes, like Carlos Mencia, I steal comedian's material. Or, since I don't make money off of this, I "reference" their material.

Holier than thou is hardly my attitude though. I am dating someone who both drinks and smokes. My parents drank and smoke. My close friends drink and smoke. My dislike of the taste of alcohol (people are admitting it's an acquired taste... well I can't drink enough of it to "acquire" that taste...) is a personal matter of taste, not a big moral statement. You can be moral and drink.

I have also "laid" every woman I've ever been with without a single drop of alcohol in my system. I think it's actually more honest and flattering that I don't require being intoxicated to find them attractive, but that's just my opinion. I don't mind people enjoying things in a responsible manner... it's the drinking and driving which proves they are irresponsible. Driving "buzzed" is the same thing as driving drunk, just to a lesser degree, and it's just as irresponsible. At least when you're really drunk, you might notice it, and intentionally drive really really slow. When you're lightly buzzed you can't really tell the difference, or so people tell me. Then you drive normally and your reflexes are dulled and bam... accident.

That's my big complaint. The fact that most people who drink treat me like a pariah because I don't is beside the point, but it would be nice if they didn't.

:coffeenews:

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 21:12

The point isn't whether you are allowed to say no, it's "why would you"?

People urge teetotalers to drink because they are missing out. Mix vodka with lemonade if you don't like the taste. Or acquire the taste like you did most other foods.

It's not that people treat you like a leper, it's that you're rejecting the chosen activity of the group for what they think is a silly reason.

:coffeenews:

I don't know what you're getting at. STFS just said:
We can't all be good looking sweetiepie which implies what I am implying... being drunk lowers your standards. I'm not saying that makes me better or holier than thou... I resent such an implication, especially when people even admit, drinking lowers your inhibitions and standards and judgment. That's not a holier than thou claim, it is a side effect of alcohol. I didn't make this stuff up and I don't think that makes me inherently better than anyone else.

Secondly, you're ignoring my smoking example, yet again. If people are smoking, and they offer me a cigarette, and I say no, how is that in any way different from if people are drinking, and they offer me a drink, and I say no? If people are having lasagna and they offer me a piece and I decline, saying "sorry, I don't like the kind of cheese they use in lasagna, but thank you!" how is that different from declining alcohol?

Ah, but I am missing out! What am I missing out on? I've tried lots and lots of drinks. I don't like the taste, I have sensitive taste buds and smell receptors and there is a powerful smell and an even more powerful taste that cannot be masked, when alcohol is present in a drink. It's like mouthwash to me. If I refused to EVER TRY IT, I'd be missing out. I am not missing out. I know what I am missing. And I hate lemonade too... so mixing two flavors I find repulsive doesn't help.

The chosen activity of the group, as I understand it, was to get together and socialize. You can drink beer with friends, does that mean everyone there must be drinking beer? What about wine? What about Pepsi? Can't I just drink a friggin Pepsi? I've even gone so far as to PUT PEPSI INTO AN EMPTY BEER BOTTLE JUST SO I CAN FIT IN WITH YOU PEOPLE... that's HARDLY "holier than thou".

I just want to be accepted, even though I hate alcohol. Is that really such a crime?

HoreTore

05-02-2009, 21:44

drinking lowers your inhibitions and standards and judgment

Undeniably one of the best, and certainly the funniest, side effect of alcohol.

Ah, but I am missing out! What am I missing out on? I've tried lots and lots of drinks. I don't like the taste, I have sensitive taste buds and smell receptors and there is a powerful smell and an even more powerful taste that cannot be masked, when alcohol is present in a drink. It's like mouthwash to me. If I refused to EVER TRY IT, I'd be missing out. I am not missing out. I know what I am missing. And I hate lemonade too... so mixing two flavors I find repulsive doesn't help.

The chosen activity of the group, as I understand it, was to get together and socialize. You can drink beer with friends, does that mean everyone there must be drinking beer? What about wine? What about Pepsi? Can't I just drink a friggin Pepsi? I've even gone so far as to PUT PEPSI INTO AN EMPTY BEER BOTTLE JUST SO I CAN FIT IN WITH YOU PEOPLE... that's HARDLY "holier than thou".

Alcohol doesn't taste good. That is, pure alcohol doesn't taste good. That's why we use it to wash our car windows, when we drink, we drink the finer spirits, like a good scotch, like Laproaigh 10 or Lagavulin. And wine is certainly as acceptable as beer. Depends on the mood, but I usually have more fun with wine, it makes you incredibly giggly, and I also become very charming to the ladies... Unfortunately, it also makes my willie stop working.

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 21:51

There's nothing wrong with not drinking. I would only drink if I thought I might be letting down a group of friends or something. I know that sounds like classic peer pressure stuff, but then I wouldn't want to be the guy sitting there making everyone awkward. However, I would just not get into such situations in the first place. Also, I've never been in the sort of situation where drinking is the social thing to do. Here, you either binge drink or are teetotal. At school, two of my friends got expelled over alcohol related incidents, they didn't just drink to be social one of them became a proper alcoholic for a while.

Now at Uni the only guy I know well who I didn't know from school doesn't drink at all (though I think he has a gambling problem, he puts bets on over £1,000 and we are not rich students or anything), he just doesn't see the point in it. Right now I don't drink at all, I might do a little if I get a social life at some point but it would just be to fit in more than anything.

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 22:26

Why is it awkward, remind me?

I mean... it's much like a non-religious person enjoying a conversation with a religious person, and one says to the other: "Have you heard of Jesus?" And the other says yes. And the first one says "Would you like to try my church?" and the other says, I'm flattered, but no thank you. Please enjoy your church as you like, but I am perfectly comfortable with my own beliefs. "Maybe you've not tried enough churches? Maybe if you just keep trying it, you'll like it!" and then the other says no, I've tried several churches, read every Bible or holy book, observed eastern religions, and even the harder stuff, but seriously, I find them all to be not to my personal taste. But please, enjoy your religion. I'll even talk with you about it, no problem. It's not my thing but I'll join in on the conversation.

And then they look at him weird. How can someone enjoy life without religion? It makes you feel better and gives you an optimistic outlook and makes you relaxed. It's also an excellent way to meet like-minded women. What's the downside?

I'm not saying there is. I'm saying I've sampled it many times, tasted it, and found it to be unpalatable to my particular tastes. But please, enjoy it.

Alcohol is the same way. Enjoy it all you like, enjoy its effects... just don't push it on people who don't want it, and please don't hurt anyone when partaking of it's unique flavor and spiritous effects.

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 22:33

I just mean its maybe a bit awkward if everyone else is a bit merry and laughing at the kinds of things you need to be drunk to laugh at, while you are just sitting there. I'm just saying that's why I avoid those situations.

And religion makes for some seriously awkward situations. :no:

Fragony

05-02-2009, 22:40

I'm not saying that makes me better or holier than thou...

Yet that more allergic to alcohol. some people have that, body knows what's good for you :bow:

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 22:53

And religion makes for some seriously awkward situations. :no:

Sometimes. But then again, so does tofu. The key is tolerance and acceptance that not everyone finds salvation the same way you do.

Some think that purifying their bodies by eating tofu is the best path. Others eat steak. The civilized world allows both to coexist, and maybe even share a friendship or a civil conversation once in a while. perhaps even a spirited debate, without making things personal.

I've very much attempted to be tolerant of alcohol use, I've attempted to join in, and I do tolerate the responsible kind of alcohol use. However, when people start endangering other people's lives, rights and freedoms, etc... I draw the line. Same for just about any voluntary way of living; including religion.

Religion is a lot like alcohol. :grin:

Fragony-

But I'm not an Oracle, thank you very much. I never claimed to be and I resent the implication that I think I have access to supernatural knowledge when that is the exact opposite of what I am claiming. It's not a nickname I'd like to have, thank you.

Fragony

05-02-2009, 23:14

But I'm not an Oracle, thank you very much. I never claimed to be and I resent the implication that I think I have access to supernatural knowledge when that is the exact opposite of what I am claiming. It's not a nickname I'd like to have, thank you.

I know, it's pretty common knowledge, as an oracle you would suck

Askthepizzaguy

05-02-2009, 23:20

I know, it's pretty common knowledge, as an oracle you would suck

yeah, I'd imagine so. Then again, everyone who ever claimed to be one kind of blew it with their predictions as well. :laugh4:

Rhyfelwyr

05-02-2009, 23:25

yeah, I'd imagine so. Then again, everyone who ever claimed to be one kind of blew it with their predictions as well. :laugh4:

Except for... 2012

Crazed Rabbit

05-02-2009, 23:42

I seriously would have a zero tolerance policy. And if that didn't work, we could outlaw it just like heroin. I think heroin kills fewer people anyway. Let's go with the sheer numbers of deaths that I don't consider accidental because it involves voluntary and illegal behavior. Car accidents are one thing, if you're driving legally and someone makes an honest mistake... that's life.

Drinking and driving makes me, a non-violent man, want to scream and hit things.

:dizzy2:

Zero tolerance policies are, universally, stupid. There's a reason we use courts and juries to judge each case individually. It's because zero tolerance policies are poor, blockheaded, attempts to fit all the possible events involving a certain type of action into one single box.

And are you seriously suggesting outlawing alcohol? You have got to be kidding, right?!

Have you never even heard of prohibition?!

This sort of closed-minded emotionalism makes me want to scream.

You should not, under any circumstance, have a beer and then drive.

Why? Unless you weight 80 pounds, one beer isn't going to have a significant effect. And the significant part is important; they are all sorts of things that reduce our concentration when driving; passengers, the radio, weather, etc. But folks like MADD focus solely on drinking. Being ticketed for drunk driving should be based on how much it actually effects your driving.

They are viewed similarly here. I swear, every time someone offers me a drink and I say no thank you, it looks as though I've just shnat an elephant with three heads all over their carpet.

Gee, really? I wonder why...

Some people don't like the taste. No big whoop. But I've seen the way people act when they are on the stuff and I think to myself: "what's up with him? A mild form of retardation, or something?" but then I realize, he's not retarded, it's a conscious choice to be like that, and that's even more terrifying to me.
...
It's because some of you drinkers can't handle your drinks. Most of you can't, even you casual drinkers. Maybe you don't drink and drive but sometimes you do act like jerks or you go home with a jerk and accidentally spread a disease or get pregnant over poor judgment thanks to precious alcohol

Oh wait. No I don't.

I know people who don't drink and I don't act like people act towards you. I know alcoholics who don't act towards non-drinkers like you describe. Maybe you should look for the common thread in all your experiences. :inquisitive:

CR

Fragony

05-03-2009, 00:06

Being ticketed for drunk driving should be based on how much it actually effects your driving.

How are you going to meassure that, and how will it not lead to very complicated lawcases costing a lot of money, just don't get behind the wheel when you are drunk. If you do happen to do all the tricks that are expected from you, walk a line and all that, and you cause an accident later, who is to blame, you or the one who let you move on, and who is going to pay.

Rhyfelwyr

05-03-2009, 00:08

Yep CR that sounds like one bureaucratic pain in the :daisy:

If you want to drink, don't drive. Keep things simple. :yes:

Sasaki Kojiro

05-03-2009, 00:09

Crazed Rabbit

05-03-2009, 00:13

How are you going to meassure that, and how will it not lead to very complicated lawcases costing a lot of money, just don't get behind the wheel when you are drunk. If you do happen to do all the tricks that are expected from you, walk a line and all that, and you cause an accident later, who is to blame, you or the one who let you move on, and who is going to pay.

Cops can already give tickets for reckless driving, which doesn't involve alcohol. It could simply be an extension of that, with the intoxication tests used by cops as proof of recklessness. If you're ticketed for reckless driving and you're intoxicated, then you get the same penalties you would for drunk driving.

The problem here isn't just saying; "Don't drive if you're drunk." That's obvious. But to say a person who's had a beer or two over the course of dinner is drunk driving is ridiculous.

CR

Fragony

05-03-2009, 00:27

Cops can already give tickets for reckless driving, which doesn't involve alcohol. It could simply be an extension of that, with the intoxication tests used by cops as proof of recklessness. If you're ticketed for reckless driving and you're intoxicated, then you get the same penalties you would for drunk driving.

The problem here isn't just saying; "Don't drive if you're drunk." That's obvious. But to say a person who's had a beer or two over the course of dinner is drunk driving is ridiculous.

CR

Can understand the 'out of principle', but there must be a standard for some things, drunk driving is one of them because it isn't just about you. We know we do stupid things, overestimate situatiions, act stupid, it's common concensus we try halt that. Try explaining it to someone who has lost someone because of a drunk idiot, you will want his balls.

Askthepizzaguy

05-03-2009, 00:38

Crazed Rabbit-

So prohibition is stupid, eh? ORLY? What about prohibiting heroin? Should we legalize all mind-altering drugs because a previous experiment with banning alcohol was unpopular and resulted in organized crime? It's the same idea; trying to regulate through laws and ban certain addictive, mind-altering substances which aren't prescribed by a doctor.

Very well; I propose an experiment. In one community, drugs shall be regulated and the hard stuff we already ban shall be banned. There will be mandatory rehab, employers will be allowed to test for drugs, police will be allowed to confiscate drugs, fine and imprison. This shall include alcohol.

In another, we shall make all drugs legal and consequence free. Perhaps a smallish one like Rhode Island; just to see how it goes. If the population of that community survives, drug-related deaths decrease, and people want to live in such a community, then it will be a successful experiment. I say let the natural selection begin! :grin:

I am not trying to remove from people the ability to do what they want in their communities, I am saying that I'd like to live in a community which prohibits extremely stupid behavior like drunk driving and actually makes stiffer penalties for doing so. All that moral indignation over my political stance on the issue doesn't at all explain why when you offer someone a drink and they say no that makes you unworthy of socializing. I've never really expressed my political opinion on the subject before, because I know it's unpopular and won't happen except through voluntary abstinence. For you to say that my argument here explains anything that happened in real life is laughable at best, and disingenuous. They are two completely unrelated things.

:shrug: So I guess I can't socialize with you. Not a big deal, it's your choice. Free will and all.