starbelgrade wrote: » By concept, do you mean the representational theory of mind or the semantic theory of concepts?
Diogenes wrote: » Yes because what this debate is the merits of Hobbes vs Tarski.
dodgyme wrote: » Why do you think people go to the pub.? you need to get out more FFS
Mad Finn wrote: » And how do they get home? Or do they just crash the night with you?
jetfiremuck wrote: » this thread is running out of steam. Time to move on. Looks like 80mg is here for a while longer.
bonkey wrote: » How many people here who opposed the notion of dropping to 50 would support such legislation...and if not, why not? If you would support it....where do you draw the limits? How many times are 18 additional lives payable before we reach a point where we say "too many people are dying because of where we placed the limit"
SeanW wrote: » Condolences for the loss of your friend. But please spare us the emotional hyperbole - was your friend killed by someone with a BAC of between 50 & 80? Or was the driver in question totally fluted? Because I suspect that - like most drunk drivers - he/she was way over any sensible limit. As to "if it saves ONE life" ... well guess what? If we all stayed in bed all day and wraped ourselves in cotton wool, noone would ever die on the roads or in accidents or anything, but I dare say life would be not much worth living. Any right thinking person must reject the Nanny State completely, totally and without reservation. So there HAS to be a balance ... and that is even if lowering the limit will save lives which in itself is very much speculation and guesstimation. We have enough bad law the case for it made with emotional hyperbole - remember the mushroom ban? Some tosser in Dublin took a small amount of magic mushrooms, a huge amount of alcohol, died in an accident (fell out a window or something) then after tea and a cry-in with the clowns family, Mary Harney Minister for Health, issued a ban on magic mushrooms. Doesn't matter to me because I'd never touch the damn things, but it's none of my business if someone else does.
dodgyme wrote: » Quit with the BS please. you are not showing your are very mature with it. No they are not. If they were we wouldnt be having this debate. Its a debate about the amount your are allowed to have in your system. You set your rules good for you. What has your age got to do with it? Oh you manged to buy a car in your thirties - now I get it. In you 20's, no car, so you couldnt drink and drive. Now you are in your 30's and mature you dont want to. Oh and you live in dublin so that makes it handy.
optocynic wrote: » I'm sorry... but nothing in that reply made any sense... This is simple... If you have even one drink.. you are impared.. even if you feel fine.. this is a fact.. ask the experts! If you drink and drive.. you are a scumbag... putting other's lives in danger for the sake of a pint!..
starbelgrade wrote: » What does Eddie Hobbes have to do with it?
dodgyme wrote: Oh you manged to buy a car in your thirties - now I get it. In you 20's, no car, so you couldnt drink and drive. Now you are in your 30's and mature you dont want to. Oh and you live in dublin so that makes it handy.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Spare a thought for your country cousins, there is no public transport, would like us all to walk home on unlit roads in bad weather. .
optocynic wrote: » You seem to be quiet the selfish, obtuse and arrogant type...
As for the magic mushrooms thing... I hold the same position as anyone with a brain.. I have no problem with them.. I don't care if people put their own life in danger... I care when they put other's lives in danger.. all for the sake of a pint!...
Answer the question.. why do these people NEED to have a drink? Can they not just drink sparkling water?
bonkey wrote: » Someone mentioned above that the estimated change in death-toll would be 18 people per year. Ignoring, for a moment, the question of injuries, I'd ask you to consider the reverse situation. Imagine that the government was proposing an increase in the limit, from 80 to, say, 100.
vinylrules wrote: » Actually, the experts also say that your body eliminates one standard drink per hour (some people eliminate it even quicker). Therefore someone having a glass of wine with a meal and driving, say an hour and a half later, has zero alcohol in their system. Zero alcohol = no drink driving , which means no impairment. Generally, people don't drink and drive at the same time - they drink and then drive some time later. How much later is what matters. If I had two pints in the pub before Springsteen's three-hour concert (getting into the RDS half an hour before show-time) and drive half an hour after the concert ends, there would be zero alcohol in my system. How do I know this? It happened to me - was breathalized on the way home from the show and the reading was zero, nada, zilch. Same for somone having a drink at lunchtime and driving home four hours later. Please everyone, stop this hysteria about what tiny amounts of alcohol can do. Excess alcohol is what causes most of the problems - the law of diminishing returns is reached long before you get down to zero tolerence. And rembember it takes the same Garda time to process someone at teh very lower end of the scale as someone who is several times the limit. Also can everyone google "The Borkenstein Dip" - which indicates that small amounts of alcohol in present in drivers appears to amount to less accidents. (see below)A feature of these figures that has intrigued statisticians is the reduction in accident risk between 10 mg and 40 mg, sometimes referred to as the "Borkenstein dip". This is certainly valid, not just a statistical quirk, and has been reinforced by other studies. However, it is unlikely really to indicate that consuming a small amount of alcohol will make you a slightly better driver. It is probably a combination of the fact that people driving after one or two small drinks are likely to be driving at times when the roads are quieter than average, and that they may try to compensate for the alcohol by making an effort to drive more carefully than usual. But this underlines the fact that, at these low levels, alcohol does not impair driving ability at all. ¶ R F Borkenstein et al: The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents (Bloomington, Indiana University, Department of Police Administration, 1964)
SeanW wrote: » Priests must consume unused church wine as part of Sunday ceremonies. People use mouthwash. Some like to have a glass of wine with a meal. Certain desserts use alcohol in the recipe. Cough medicines frequently use alcohol. Plus, this is Ireland and a lot of life - particularly in rural areas and among older people - revolves around the pub. Which is unfortunate. WRT the statistics I consider necessary for this evaluation, if no statistics are available then we should start by implementing mandatory alcohol testing at accident scenes. That way we could find out farily sharp-ish just how many accidents are caused by .50-.80 drink drivers.
optocynic wrote: » So, basically you don't think it is 'worth it' to change the law?... Unless we can show you the mangled remains of a person?
As for testing at all accidents... please.... reactionary, why not be proactive??
SeanW wrote: » No. I'm just asking that if the limit is lowered, it should be on the basis of evidence and facts. We've had an .80 limit for years now, and we should have adequate information.
SeanW wrote: » I agree but we have to start somewhere. Additionally I too would like to see more random breath testing checkpoints, if that's what you mean.
optocynic wrote: » That is not the aim of the legislation in my mind.
It is a much needed deterent to the ingrained Irish mentality to drinking. Right now, you can have 1 pint... and still 'drive'... We can't trust the average Joe to stop at 1 pint. We should completely remove the temptation to drink and drive at all!!!
We should have checkpoints outside every Pub car park... those car parks are always full.. do they really think the pubs sell that much coke?.. Proactive life saving.. rather that reactive blame storming!!!
ninty9er wrote: » Plenty of people go to pubs and don't drink. Why are you so special that you shouldn't be expected to?
dodgyme wrote: » Oh I feel really special going to a pub and expecting to have a drink? Fact is we are talking about limits. Most people I know will have a pint and maybe a few non alco beers and head home if they are driving. I also think alot wouldnt bother going out if they couldnt have atleast one pint in these situations.
optocynic wrote: » This is simple... If you have even one drink.. you are impared.. even if you feel fine.. this is a fact.. ask the experts!!..
optocynic wrote: » If you drink and drive.. you are a scumbag... putting other's lives in danger for the sake of a pint!..
SeanW wrote: » You're right, it isn't. And that's why we have so much bad law already. So what you're say is, that if it were (hypothetically speaking) to be shown that the rate of accidents/fatalities were equal or close for 0 and, for example .51 driving, per X kilometers driven, that you would consider this irrelevant? It remains my strong suspicion that the majority of accidents/fatalities are caused by people way over the limit and driving really crazy. Like this clown. Besides as I showed above there are plenty of reasons for a person to have alcohol that have nothing to do with getting loaded down the pub. Why not do both? Save lives AND collect hard information?
dodgyme wrote: » The argument is about the degree of impairment. The limits are there to qualify these. No need to ask experts, its the law. Well the law doesnt argee with you so perhaps you should picket your local garda station or pub since you seem to feel so so strongly about it.
optocynic wrote: » And what is wrong with that? Do you have to go to the pub to have a full life? Can you not have a drink at home with your better half and have a chat.. And if you really need to go to the boozer, why not walk... take a taxi... or better yet... drink something other than booze..??
optocynic wrote: » So, you think it is OK to drink and drive? Why can't people just avoid booze when driving? Is it really that hard to not drink?
dodgyme wrote: » Can you stop telling me what to do and deal with the argument - which is about limits. IMO the old limit of 2ish pints and be ok to drive according to the law was fine. Then they lowered them to 80. However that limit is there now and I dont think they should be lowered anymore I think that it will have zero effect. A question - is everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis?
