|
New ban! Starting Aug 1, 21 and under cannot have ANY alcohol in blood while driving! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Endgame |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
normal use of mouthwash does not trigger any response from a breathalyzer - believe me, I asked this same question when I was trained on it. |
Good to know. What about foods that contain alcohols?
Seems like we need a Mythbusters episode testing these things. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endgame
*Sigh* Very frustrating, as now I lose several people (not 22yrs old) in my circle of friends who are always willing to DD, provided they can nurse a beer while we're out.
The most irritating thing is that it's not "You have to be 21", you have to be over 21 years, 364 days, 11 hours and 59 seconds to have any BAC level.
Most worrisome, as Chem said, is that you'd have to cab it home from the dentist after using mouthwash? Chicken Alfredo with white wine sauce could push you over 0%. (Whether it's detectable or not is its own argument.)
I would think that the .05-.08 license suspensions, along with the existing <.08 DUI laws would teach the same lessons? If a "young adult" (restate the irritation of 21 days, 364 days...etc years old) has 2 drinks, hits that .05 threshold and has to pay for their car being towed + a cab ride home + back to the station to pick up their suspended license...Wouldn't that teach them a lesson about
a) their ACTUAL tolerance (not their "I'm good to drive" assumption)
as well as
b) the actual REAL consequences of having "a couple drinks"?
Most young people who are trying to be responsible, (but might be hovering at the actual "impaired" level) could just need a real wake up call. I'm guessing sitting inside a RIDE van having to do a breathalyzer being scared out of their wits, blowing a .05 would be more effective deterrent than hearing lawmakers say NO DRINKS EVER YOU TERRIBLE CHILDREN.
That all being said, kids under 21 who are going to party, drink and drive are not going to change their habits because a BAC level law changes from .08/.05 to zero. We all know these types of people...if you're responsible with your drinking and transportation, then you're going to do something responsible. If you don't care, then 0-.05-.08 won't make a difference. |
excellent post.
Might i add that the irresponsible might actually drink more. The logic being that since they already had one or two, they are going to get in trouble anyways, so why not drink more?
Treating people like criminals before they become one often leads people to actually become criminals. Same thing if you replace the word criminals with children |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
normal use of mouthwash does not trigger any response from a breathalyzer - believe me, I asked this same question when I was trained on it. We tried two different scenarios: normal usage of mouthwash, and actually drinking the mouthwash. Mouthwash does not register under normal use, and 7 ounces of mouthwash were required to register ANYTHING when it was swallowed. Only the most hardcore of mouthwash drinkers amongst our homeless would ever test positive. |
oh but it does, and numerous studies have shown this to be true.
as another related example, the use of breath spray can incite BAC counts in excess of 0.81 - well beyond the fatality level limitation of any living human being.
But it's not really the mouthwash or breath spray we're talking about here, is it? There are many sources of significant error in BAC testing devices.
And since we're talking about criminal conviction based on any reading except absolute zero - from a machine and process that routinely is error-prone - i find the path we're headed on extremely disturbing.
Of course this is quite apart from the fact that true BACs that fall below 0.05 are associated with no loss in motor functioning, and therefore no impairment. |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endgame
Good to know. What about foods that contain alcohols?
Seems like we need a Mythbusters episode testing these things. |
many consumables can incite a positive result, even when not wholly consumed. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by -g-
the cumulative effect is one where the individual exercises a personally imposed limitation on their own drinking habits.
|
I don't believe Canadians would abide by this en masse, if the legal limitations on alcohol were removed. Perhaps eventually, but there would be a period of adjustment, and I believe it would be ugly.
Pardon my ignorance but did Australia have similar alcohol laws as we do and then change, or have they always been more lax?
Regarding 0.08 vs 0.0 BAC, I think if 0.08 were left, the angle needs to be different: discourage drinking altogether, but leave wiggle room for the aforementioned non-drinking reasons. Thus far the message has always been 1 drink and you're fine, but it gets iffy based on so many personal factors. |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I don't believe Canadians would abide by this en masse, if the legal limitations on alcohol were removed. Perhaps eventually, but there would be a period of adjustment, and I believe it would be ugly.
Pardon my ignorance but did Australia have similar alcohol laws as we do and then change, or have they always been more lax? |
not too sure... however their culture is closer to that of the UK than Canada, for whatever that's worth in terms of gross societal norms.
i dunno about the change in attitude that might emerge tho - i know that it was immediate for me right after moving there.
i mean, you literally can get a drink anytime you want. i suppose that sometimes i did drink more than i might have here, but without exception, that drinking was spaced out much more evenly throughout the night, for obvious reasons.
it's very difficult to impress how fundamentally this changed how i thought about a social night out and the drinking that would often accompany that. it changed my behaviour in that regard almost literally overnight.
but maybe that was just me. there was never any mad rush for the bar in oz by anyone, but perhaps that was down to everyone else's expectations around me. i will say that this change had a similar effect on the other canadians i knew and hung out with for a while down there. so who knows? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
When i go to countries without last call, i drink the same but its def spaced out more. And i dont go for the last call binge. And, you can walk down the street with your beer which sometimes i would do no different from having a pop. And why the hell shouldnt we be able to?
In argentina, i loved living over a grocery store where i could buy liquor. I would go downstairs and buy a cooler and just relax on the patio. No worries. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
When i go to countries without last call, i drink the same but its def spaced out more. And i dont go for the last call binge. And, you can walk down the street with your beer which sometimes i would do no different from having a pop. And why the hell shouldnt we be able to?
In argentina, i loved living over a grocery store where i could buy liquor. I would go downstairs and buy a cooler and just relax on the patio. No worries. |
Exactly. You're not treated like some criminal who's rights are limited by the government. I love being in Europe and walking into any random grocery store at any time and grab a beer or 2. Even if its a spontaneous craving at 11pm I can still get it, whereas here if I get off work any later than 10pm I'm screwed, especially if it's been a long, hard day and I could really use a drink...I can't unless I go to a bar and pay $6.75 for a pint :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Exactly. You're not treated like some criminal who's rights are limited by the government. I love being in Europe and walking into any random grocery store at any time and grab a beer or 2. Even if its a spontaneous craving at 11pm I can still get it, whereas here if I get off work any later than 10pm I'm screwed, especially if it's been a long, hard day and I could really use a drink...I can't unless I go to a bar and pay $6.75 for a pint :rolleyes: |
the thing that the anti nimrods never understand is that you cant stop those who are determined to abuse something. Some people will always do so. In fact, making it more taboo will encourage MORE abuse.
Like in interception. "How do you get someone to think about elephants? By telling them not to think about elephants" |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| Their argument [nimrods] is that alcohol abuse is going to increase. Bull. If you're gonna abuse alcohol then you'll do it no matter what. Somehow the rest of the world (and other Canadian provinces) seems to be handling the unrestricted access to alcohol pretty well. So why can't Ontarians? Does this province only attract a special breed of retards? Or is it that the province treats its citizens that way? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
|
LOVE IT LOL |
|
|
|
|
