Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure how dangerous it is in terms of speed, but in terms of distraction it's much worse than drink driving. For example.

Go to community college

Which blocks you from having a high level career as a doctorate in science, engineering, or medicine. Which again, is a feature for Social Darwinists - gotta keep the riff raft out.

[citation needed]

While have I never attended a community college, my ~$30,000* (total including living expenses) SUNY undergrad education in no way disqualified me for the PhD in physics I earned.

* That was a decade ago but tuition hasn't raised much in the last 10 years.

And it is not illegal for those under 21 to drink in all States. In Ohio, your parents may permit you drink in your household. In some states, your parents can compel a restaurant to serve you alcohol.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/Most-States-in-US-Permit-Drinking-Under-the-Age-of-21.html

http://blog.aacriminallaw.com/dwi/breathalyzer-101-fail-test-sober/

Not to mention
http://www.ladanlaw.com/how-accurate-are-breathalyzers-anyway.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

Yeah it's just one more thing to try to make the world safer but totally ignoring many other factors that kill many more people. Especially with many studies that show distracted driving being, in many cases, WORSE than drunk driving. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html
Personally I'd rather see somebody with a BAC of .08 on the road than many other activities that lead to even more fatal wrecks.

Even a borderline aspy can appreciate the evidence that moderate drinking is correlated with increased longevity. This may or may not be causative, but one or two drinks per day is unlikely to hurt.

And good beer is tasty too. Far better than the synthetically flavored highly acidic sugar water that so many people drink. To your health!

Which might be why one of the founders of MADD now opposes MADD. Saying they've lowered the alcohol limit to such a low level that it's no longer about drunk driving, but prohibition.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119636699.html

No but then I don't smoke or drink.
But how many millions of people do every day. They are already do. I notice you say would would ban tobacco but didn't touch the idea of banning alcohol. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/healthissues/1109728149.html
Alcohol does increase your risk for cancer? Do you drink? If so then you are doing that experiment on yourself that you state is oh so foolish. Maybe you think that risk is worth the benefits? Humm........
Yes It is good that we restrict things like benzene which is a known cancer causing chemical. Outright banning it? There a lot of very dangerous chemicals that are very useful. Before it was known how dangerous benzene was you could buy it everywhere. It was a common and frankly very good fuel additive if you over look that whole causing cancer thing. Racing aircraft would often use large amounts of it. It is still used and will be for a long time because it is useful. You can no longer buy it at the local hardware store and they don't put it in aftershave anymore which are both good things. Yes there is a lot of stuff can kill you if you don't use it correctly you ban castor plants because they can kill you? I am all for safety but things are as far from a simple "big corps are greedy and don't care if you die of cancer".

This is only partially correct. I'm for getting rid of most of the leniency that comes with drunk-driving "punishments" handed down these days. There is no excuse for the unbelievable lack of forethought that comes with getting behind the wheel of a car that you can't adequately control.

However, so long as we rely on inaccurate breathalyzers (none of which are accurate, fwiw) for determining who is drunk and who is not, leniency is absolutely called for to counter the grossly wrong way in which DUI cases are handled. People talk a lot about punishing DUI offenders as is done in Europe, but Europe doesn't screw around with breathalyzers.

I know it's been thrown around here before, but this should be enough to make anyone who thinks that our current system of evidence gathering is good enough change his mind.

How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content?

This is called natural selection -- those unfit to preserve their existence will remove themselves from the gene pool. It's not pretty, but it's logical and it's part of nature...

Who pays to clean up that mess? I can understand moderation - but our newspapers are littered with stories of people who don't do moderation.

What mess? If you mean who cleans up the dead people who overdose -- well we have that problem EVEN WITH drug prohibition -- people commit suicide all the time and people kill each other all the time.

If you mean who cleans up for the stupid actions people take when they're under the influence of drugs -- THEY do. If you go out and assault someone, YOU pay for the consequences by spending time in jail and likely being fined. If you happen to be under the influence of a drug while you do that, YOU STILL should pay the same cost.

Which is cheaper - the army surrounding the bottle, or paying to have a support net to catch the stupid when they fall?

I think cleaning up after the actions of irresponsible drug users is much cheaper (we have to clean up for their actions ANYWAYS). The war on drugs cost almost $14 BILLION DOLLARS in 2009.

Furthermore, if you look at countries that have very relaxed drug policies, you'll notice that they have much fewer drug addicts. Why is this? Because the forbidden fruit is much more tempting... Many countries in Europe have no enforced legal drinking age, and they have much less problems with excessive youth drinking than the United States does. In fact, most of the marijuana smokers in Amsterdam are tourists; the native residents don't even smoke that much marijuana!

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1098894305.html

Man loses license for drinking at home

I would refuse a breathalyzer test. If a cop is that sure they can't arrest me and do a blood test, and then I'll write some angry letters for them wasting my time. I'm not risking my criminal record on a device that overestimates at least 23% of the time.

...high rates of obesity (soul food), diabetes (sweet tea), and heart disease....

Having just moved from there, to the Bay Area, Ca....
Yes, Ga is unhealthy. Alot of the blame can also be put on the government of the state, which continues to push for more and wider highways (as if 16 lanes isnt enough), continue to allow and support the majority of power plants running on fossil fuels, mainly coal and including 3 of the dirtiest in the US, with two in the top 3 of that list. This, combined with naturally high humidity, ultra high pollen counts and high temperatures makes the air quality suck, putting Atlanta in 4th for most challenging place to live with asthma and consistently in the Top Ten smoggiest cities. This keeps people inside. Going anywhere basically means driving there as sprawl and the resulting proliferation of more roads without increased mass transit or even bike lanes(again, gvmt sponsored), reckless drivers in large vehicles thanks to (previously, and relatively) cheap gas and the whole "southern/redneck" bit that leans towards F250s with 12"lift on mud tires, and the horrid air make it difficult to impossible to walk or bike anywhere (outside of Down/Mid Town Atl) for fear of your life. So people tend to sit on their fat asses in their offices all day and eat at one of about 20 McDonads or Waffle Houses in the 2mi radius of their home (after driving there of course)... not that I miss having a 24h eatery nearby (I miss my WaHo and Marietta Diner!). Add to all that that NASCAR is a "Sport" in Ga, and as such, "exercising" consists of sitting in bleachers (or on the sofa), smoking, drinking budweiser and eating chilli cheese dogs while watching cars go in circles.

Alot of this could be fixed by improving mass-transit, curbing Sprawl (which is what really caused the drought) and improving Atlanta's Bikability. Generally getting people out of their cars and walking or biking places. MARTA's subway line only goes to about 3 useful places: the airport, downtown, and perimeter mall, while a majority of people live in Cobb County, which rejected having anything to do with a Marta rail line (think: "It will bring in the colored people to steal our TV's!").

Ga is way behind in most rankings of things as well: the Gov'ner has repeatedly struck down attempts to allow Sunday sales of any alcoholic beverage (outside of a restaurant), the most recent time saying it would teach "better time management," thus keeping Georgia one of 3 states still having such arcane blue laws. The state is kept in the past though laws like this, as well as the control the churches have over it and its citizens, which al

We win.

pretty amazing how this isn't considered being against the 5th amendment! One of the several DUI exemptions to the constitution.

also

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as "the DUI exception to the Constitution." 1

Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn't provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn't justify violating individuals' constitutional rights, justices argued.

from http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/110 3163004.html

A half bottle of white wine a day speeds up recovery from Salmonella. The bacteria don't like the acidity and the alcohol. Worked for me.

There is plenty of evidence that drinking wine with a meal can prevent food poisoning too:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1110 384069.html

I hope that there will one day be an end to the dangerous, unsanitary and ungentlemanly practice of eating without a glass of decent wine.

Actually the accuracy of breathalyzers is a topic of some debate. At least 23% of all individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their actual BAC. According to wikipedia many factors including temperature, the persons breathing pattern, and if the device has been recently recalibrated or not can affect the results - so much so that some states don't allow breathalyzer results in court (they require blood tests)

Since when do federal laws that have lower standards override higher standards at the state level? That's like saying that the federal drinking age (in the 80s) of 18 made it mandatory for all states to comply with 18 instead of 21. That's not the case.

According to research, drinking is not associated with weight gain.

It's not good if you are taking pills
It's not good if it is a sweet alcohol or has a sweet mix.

However...
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1104 370191.html

Drinkers get type 2 diabetes less.

Hard Drinks count as a fat exchange.
http://www.dlife.com/dLife/do/ShowContent/daily_li ving/diabetes_alcohol/

Beer counts as starch (i.e. ~sugar) However one person reported drinking beer lowered their sugar levels (http://www.diabetesfiles.com/forums/support/1066- diabetes-and-alcohol.html)

Several places say it can cause your blood sugar to drop (which can make you act crazy) and being drunk makes it hard to tell if you are having problems because you get stupid.

Obviously, if pot were legal, it would be better for diabetics most likely.

I did a bit of research and I stand partially corrected...

It seems that what I said was the case until 1982. (source)

Since 1982, the legal drinking age for U.S. military personnel (on active duty only!) has been the same as the age legally enforced by the location of the military base. Or in the case of bases within 50 or 100 (conficting sources here) miles of an US-to-[other nation] border, the base commander has the option to allow it to go as low as the lowest age legal for either the local laws or for the nation across the border. Also, bases in other countries can have a drinking age as low as 18, but also dictated by local laws and customs. (source)

Apparently, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are/were proposing to allow military bases in their states to have a drinking age of 18.

Depending on the state, yes.

In some states it's illegal to drive drunk on private property. (Like being in your driveway.) For example, that Mythbusters episode on the subject of drunk vs. cell phone, the cops wouldn't let them drive on a private lot. In WI, you can get blasted, and drive around your back 40 all you want.

On the other hand, getting out of a bar, realizing you are too drunk, and sleeping it off in your own back seat in the bar parking lot will also get you arrested for driving drunk.

Those fucking MADD people have lost their way, and are actively pushing all these draconian laws. They want to ban any sort of alcohol completely, not just make the roads safer. Their original founder thinks they are whack now even....

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/Drinkin gAndDriving/1059064892.html

any parent may allow his children to drink

Actually that's also perfectly legal in all but 7 U.S. states.

Nobody drinks alone. Go out to the local and raise a glass of Guinness. (I'm a stout fellow.)

You'll have more fun and you'll live longer! (as long as you limit your drinks to one)
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1106 591095.html

Everyone is talking about the connection between coffee and Cirrhosis without examining how alcohol causes Cirrhosis. The trick that coffee is doing is marginally reversing the harmfull effects that cause Cirrhosis. Basically the alcohol depleats the nutrients that the liver needs, causing Cirrhosis. The coffee has some of the nutrients that alcohol removes. The better idea is to replenish ALL of the nutrients so as to feel no ill-effects from alchohol (as far as health is concerned).

There is a great book writen by a professional nutritionist that discusses how this works in detail. The title is pretty cheesy but the work is solid. It is called, "Drink as Much as You Want and Live Longer" by Frederick M. Beyerlein.

Also a good web reference to debunk alot of alcohol related health myths (with the profesonal research to back it up) is at:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/index.html

Amazon link to "Drink as Much as You Want and Live Longer":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155950188X/002-71 01737-9453630?v=glance&n=283155

laxisusous

I think I heard that brain cells doesn't die from alcohol they just "slumber." Laying off the bottle for a few years and you're up to speed again. I searched and found this:

Moderate drinking doesnt kill brain cells but helps the brain function better into old age. Studies around the world involving many thousands of people report this finding. ...

However, abstinence after chronic alcohol abuse enables brains to repair themselves, according to new research involving rats.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103 162109.html

My sources are the neighborhood bars that were doing great pre-ban, out of business post-ban.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. If there has been a rash of closings in your area, that might have more to do with local economics or demographics, liquor law changes, a general decline in alcohol consumption, or a hundred other factors, than a smoking ban. Or it might just be a statistical anomaly.

Let's put some numbers to this. How many bars in your town pre-ban? How many now? How long ago did this ban go into effect?

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act.... It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following:

The drinking age in the U.S.A. is 21; it's the same for all alcoholic drinks. This is the highest drinking age in the world, at least according to this google result.

Don't forget, we had full national prohibition of alcohol less than 100 years ago. There are still a number of dry counties in various states; that is, parts of states where alcohol sale (not possession, I believe) is prohibited. These counties tend to have drive-thru liquor stores just outside their borders.

well all in moderation, when in doubt, take a break and think about it ^^

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, federal law actually allows kids to drink booze, but most states have restrictions on it. US Federal law only restricts purchase and public possession, so in some states, if a kid steals the booze from the liquor cabinet and drinks it in a private residence, he or she's ok, while in others a kid can only drink in church and still in others the kid can't drink at all (heck, if you go to Utah, it's practically banned for adults, too). Here's a bit on the US law

Not that a kid drinking is a good idea, but my point is that there may be some religious or rite-of-passage ceremony that involves alcohol or other restricted yet legal substance (read: tobacco). Completely banning them or having age only restrictions steps on freedom of religion and likely will cause cultural rifts.

In reference to the parent, movies rated R (age 17) or lower can by definition be seen by children with parent or legal guardian supervision. Anything rated NC17 or X (on the old system) requires the attendee to be at least 17. I've heard there are liability concerns with theaters letting in underage viewers, so there is some incentive to be self-policing. The same goes for stores that sell video games.

Actually, I do ignore my cell while driving, as using it has been proven to be as great an impediment as drinking.

My ex-wife was crushed under a tractor trailer truck that flew out of parking lot without looking to see if the road was clear, and I was struck by a hit and run driver. So I kinda take these things seriously.

It is my opinion that the legal system doesn't want to set a precedent by admitting that Breathalyzers don't actaully measure ethyl alcohol. They measure chemicals that contain methyl groups and ethanol is one of them. There are many others. See: 1 2 3 4 5

The argument for red/purple grape juice has to do with the higher antioxidant levels apparently present, but you can get higher levels in artichokes, beans, and other things. Lycopene is another buzz topic, so if you want lots of that eat tomatoes and watermelon.

Basically the best health advice has always been to take things in moderation, and to eat healthy and exercise. I find it amazing the power of will millions of people have to stick to crazy diets and programs when all they need to do is adhere to the above advice.

- 6 states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, and Arkansas) restrict alcohol by volume (ABV) for beer to 6%. This basically ensures that no craft breweries can survive in these states.

- Alabama limits the size of beer containers to 16 oz. No growlers for you in 'Bama

- An individual can possess no more than a case (30 cans/bottles) of beer in Arkansas

- Do we even need to mention the insane alcohol laws in Utah?

Dry counties are still abound

More cool laws: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/FunFacts/ItsT heLaw.html

Stop twisting the argument to make your view sound more correct.

I'm not twisting anything - my arguement sounds correct because, well, it is correct. :-)

By your logic, it's ok to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a minor too.

Yes. Age limits on obtaining alcohol have served only to increase binge drinking amoung teens. Certainly it's insane that a 18-year-old can marry or join the military - even be convicted of capital murder - but can't legally have a beer. Many nations have lower, or no, minimum age to obtain alcohol, and are not being overrun with alcoholics. And making tobacco legally available only to adults is such a re-enforcement of the meme that "smoking makes you look grown-up" that big tobacco should be paying the government for the marketing.

Prohibition doesn't work. (Which is not to say kids drinking or smoking is a good idea - but that's something that parents need to teach, not something the state needs to enforce.)

And on the brother giving a peek... It is still a criminal act...When something is wrong, it's wrong.

"Criminal" and "wrong" are independent variables. There's nothing inherently ethically wrong about a 18-year-old who lets his 16-year-old brother have a peek at a porn mag.

I agree with the posters commnet: Stiffer penelties. But, we also need to realize that the current level of at which someone is considered drunk is NOT truely drunk for a large portion of people. In fact, the founder of MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) is kind of dis-heartened with the way this country is treating drunk drivers. Her intent was to never make it illegal to have a cocktail, and drive. She wanted to stop the true drukards from getting behind the wheel.

What I'm trying to say, in my rambling way, is that we should punish the true drunk drivers. And punish them hard. But, don't punish citizens who have never driven drunk (or, in the case of my state, arrest people for public intoxication because they where walking home! [why where they walking home? Because they where too drunk to drive! Give them some credit for knowing their limits!]

Anyway... my undergrad was at an unknown state school, so I guarantee you I paid a whole lot less that most of the other folks. I started my entry-level job with friends who went to school in the same town as me, the only difference being they had a whole lot more debt than I did.

But I also have "name brand" masters. Cost to me? $0. How? Night school, tuition reimbursement. Not all companies have it but, but the two jobs I had both I have do (one, a huge multinational defense contractor with untold thousands of people, and two, a small ISV with about about 30 people).

I have a friend who got a full scholarship from the company we worked for, to go to school full-time to get his master's. They gave him part of his salary and he didn't have to go to work for 2 years. Part of the deal was you'd work for X more years for the company, or repay the value. But, a place hired him away and paid it off for him (yeah, late 90s, that kind of stuff happened).

There are tax implications, too. If you take classes to improve or maintain skills in your current profession, and even if you don't get reimbursed, it's all tax deductible. Why do you think employers offer it? You need to have a "current profession", obviously, in order to qualify for this.

So: go to a state school. Get a job. Go to a "name school" on your employer's dime. To be extra miserly, start at community college and transfer to the state school.

Of course, it helps to get kick-ass grades. Fumble a course in grad school and you'll find you're stuck with a whopping bill - your employer doesn't pay for lousy grades. How's that for motivation?

No it isn't! I do sincerely doubt it. If I had stated it as a fact, you would be right, but I'm not an idiot, so I didn't. Please read and understand my point before replying!

OK, sorry if I misread it as a statement and had yourself get worked up about it. However, my point still remains -- that I think it's hard to see the effects before we've been there.

Anyway, my doubt is based on the 'compulsive' element that appears in these cases. Alcoholics consume more if it's available. So do hard drug users. I think that's a reasonable model for the mental process involved.

Yes, you have a point, however, this site supports what I'm trying to tell:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/InTheirOwnWor ds/MulfordInterview.html

SUNY Potsdam -- here's the page.

Can I name 5 large cities in Canada? Sure. Quebec, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Montreal.

Oh wait, I went to college near Canada. Guess I'm disqualified.