| Smoking |
| 6 |
|
Drinking |
| 10 |
|
They are both equally bad |
| 6 |
|
Neither causes any problems |
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Live roleplaying's greatest cheerleader...
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:16 PM
Posts: 1,244,
Visits: 10,807
|
|
It’s a bloody silly, but commendable idea Tart! I’d love to see the testing centre with it’s on site bar. However, it does highlight that the law allowing a person to drive when they are just a bit pissed is rather strange.
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Mike G (7/11/2007)
Precisely - arbitray. If the limit was zero then everyone would have a clearer idea of how much they could drink - or in this case not.hardly fair though is it? makes you wonder what our main concern really is with regards to drink/driving. Anyway - I note that your forum title is "Devils Advocate" so am led to wonder how hearft-felt your desperate need to drink and drive really is.  Not my title, it's automatic.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:16 PM
Posts: 48,
Visits: 320
|
|
But how well it suits you...
****************************************************DO NOT MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF DRAGONS FOR YOU ARE CRUNCHY AND GOOD WITH KETCHUP...
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:51 PM
Posts: 1,203,
Visits: 1,915
|
|
| Fairness is difficult to apply in situations like this- if people didn't drive unsafely after taking mind altering substances then we wouldn't need to legislate against it, legislation requires a standard- a line that shouldn't be crossed- and we know that alcohol is a very difficult drug to guage the effects of, so Mike's right, the only "fair" way to ensure public safety from drug induced dangerous driving is to set the limit at zero. Far to many people have demonstrated their inability to gauge incapacity for it to be done in any other way. Either we have laws or we don't- I prefer don't, but I know to many people who can't function in that setting to advocate it.
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Tart (7/11/2007)
coffmeister (7/11/2007)
Interesting idea, but a touch impractical. Let's say someone drinks a bottle of wine over the course of a good hearty meal. This gives them a blood alcohol level of X. At a different time they drink a pint on an empty stomach. This gives them a blood alcohol level of X.Erm. it's as impractical as the current legislation, which allows you to drive legally up to 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The current legislation is rubbish, but you didn't talk about that. My own view is that zero should be the limit. Of course, I don't live in the countryside, so I don't "need" a car to get to the pub. Mind you, I don't "need" to drink to have a good time. Most times I don't and am quite happy. In fact, LARP's and my birthday are what effectively stop me from being teetotal. Of course breaking the paragraphs up aids readability but lends well to people addressing them in isolation. Also, how on earth would you measure your blood alcohol level? A self-sponsored testing kit? A pinprick system tied to the ignition? why would you need that? You don't make people do that now, and they can legally drive up the limit i mentioned above. _I_ don't do that now indeed. You seem to have confused me with the British government, I admit there are similarities but I'd thought you'd be able to see past them. I would be tempted to insist on a pinprick system but feel that this is a problem of social rather than technical engineering. I'd be pretty peeved if I had to take someone to hospital after I'd drunk a glass of wine and my car wouldn't start. With respect to the testing, it is well-established that alcohol capacity is tied to physical mass. So, you take the test, but then lose a stone. Or what if you've just not been drinking for a year? i doubt they would. I mean, i'm not forced to retest everytime i need a new glasses perscription, or if i happen to be 65 years old and have slowed down considerably over that time. [/quote]Forgive my ignorance. Doubt they would what exactly? You seem to believe that I'm insisting on a retest after every change of circumstances, whereas I'm saying that people might TAKE the test, but then have their circumstances change thereby invalidating the test. Currently the driving test is administered at zero alcohol. Perhaps, from your logic, we should make people retake the test with increasing levels of alcohol until they failed?  However, I do agree completely about the need for a certain amount of sleep before you drive. Part of the reason why I won't be going to any 24 hour time in's any time soon. :-/ I'm pretty sure lack of sleep is responsible for more accidents than drink driving actually, can anyone be bothered to check that? (though almost certianly that'll be due to more people driving tired than driving drunk).[/quote]I agree. More people find it socially irresponsible to drive under the effect of intoxicants than when they are tired. What would be interesting would be to see if there was a similar "surge" effect due to driving tired c.f. the Christmas and Summer surges of people drink-driving. Drinking increases confidence and decreases judgement and reaction speed.
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Live roleplaying's greatest cheerleader...
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:16 PM
Posts: 1,244,
Visits: 10,807
|
|
Tart (7/11/2007)
Not my title, it's automatic.So Tart, you really think that this board assigns folks a status of 'Devil's Advocate' when thier posts reach a certain level?
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Shelford (7/12/2007)
Tart (7/11/2007)
Not my title, it's automatic.So Tart, you really think that this board assigns folks a status of 'Devil's Advocate' when thier posts reach a certain level? It would seem that, like so many things, he hasn't thought it through. What happens is that Allen Stroud puts things he thinks are funny next to very regular posters. As I'm shamefully responsible for about 3% of rule 7 posts (too much free time you say?) he felt the appellation "and minimeister" to be funny. Yes, I have a knob gag next to my name, doubtless due to the unsubtle and obvious nature of my humour. Alas, said Stroud, A. is not accepting requests to change them to anything else. I personally would rather it said "really wrong" next to my name, but apparently this didn't make him... "lol" Anyway, smoking turns you into a hypocrite and liar and criminalises young people from a very young age. It also has no redeeming benefits. Any smoking is excessive. Drinking can, in moderation, be a thing that helps society. Not everyone can chill out and some need a chemical aid. I don't think there's any such thing as drinking too little, but there is clearly such a thing as drinking too much. Gosh, don't I sound all prim and proper? You'd think that I was a paragon of virtue. Perhaps drinking is one of those strangely conjugated verbs? I am merry. You are drunk. He is a raging alcoholic. British people don't drink as much as they do in Macedonia (look it up), but it tends to be the under 30's who "binge drink". It's just the collateral damage to lives and lifestyles and other people that I find a bit distressing.
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
| | |