nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Drink Driving Limits

Idbatterim

take a look at this artice! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dempsey-in-nanny-state-showdown-on-drinkdriving-limits-1917582.html The backbenchers and anyone who opposes this are a disgrace! Greedy, self serving bast**ds. I enjoy a drink as much as the next man! but the amount of lives lost through drink driving, and for those that dont lose there lives, end up as vegetables, mamed etc is appalling! I really hope it gets lowered to 50mg.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

murfie

optocynic wrote: »

And that new limit will basically put a person of average mass who has had one pint of guiness over the legal limit!..

One pint wont put you over the limit, unless your a 40kg woman.

Guide to staying under 0.05

This is purely a guide, it should be down to the individual to know when they are safe to drive. In a utopian world we wouldn't have drunk drivers but it will happen at a BAC limit of 0.05 or 0.08.

The people who make that decision to drink and drive knowing they are over 0.08 are not going to care the limit is now 0.05, they are going to drive anyway. Especially if there is going to be a level between 0.05 and 0.1 where the offense is less, as was proposed by the minister.

Focus of the government right now should be further enforcement of the current BAC limit.

optocynic

murfie wrote: »

One pint wont put you over the limit, unless your a 40kg woman.

Guide to staying under 0.05

This is purely a guide, it should be down to the individual to know when they are safe to drive. In a utopian world we wouldn't have drunk drivers but it will happen at a BAC limit of 0.05 or 0.08.

The people who make that decision to drink and drive knowing they are over 0.08 are not going to care the limit is now 0.05, they are going to drive anyway. Especially if there is going to be a level between 0.05 and 0.1 where the offense is less, as was proposed by the minister.

Focus of the government right now should be further enforcement of the current BAC limit.

Jesus... so, people are already analysiing how much they can drink under the new legislation... rather than just leave the car at home!

How pathetic are we as a nation that our entire existence has to revolve around alcohol? ... and then driving home...!

Villain

optocynic wrote: »

Once again... I raise the issue... why doesn't his local arrange a mini bus to pick up him and his mates.. then they can have more than 1 drink.. have a social chat etc... and go home safe and happy..?

LOL Im guessing you don't live in rural Ireland? Pubs are closing every week and the ones in the areas I am talking about certainly wouldn't be able to afford to buy a mini bus and insure and run it etc.

optocynic wrote: »

And to say auld fellas drive slow is utter crap... SOME are dozy and slow... some are fast, aggressive and dangerous... just like young drivers... some are reckless... some are safe!

Really? Utter crap? I really think you don't have much expierence of the Rural Ireland I am talking about, most of the Vehicles they drive wouldn't be able to go over 30mph, or maybe you have never seen anyone drive to the pub in their Tractor.

Drink Driving is totally wreckless and I 100% support the full law been applied to everyone as it stands, but I think lowering the limit in Legislation to try and scare people from breaking it rather than just inforcing the current laws is an Irish Solution to an Irish problem.

If the Gardai properly enforced the laws at all hours on all roads instead of shooting fish in a barrell on a few handy roads during the day, the impact on road safety would be much better than reducing the limit to 50mg

optocynic

Villain wrote: »

If the Gardai properly enforced the laws at all hours on all roads instead of shooting fish in a barrell on a few handy roads during the day, the impact on road safety would be much better than reducing the limit to 50mg

Why not do both?
We as a nation should demand it....

murfie

optocynic wrote: »

Jesus... so, people are already analysiing how much they can drink under the new legislation... rather than just leave the car at home!

How pathetic are we as a nation that our entire existence has to revolve around alcohol? ... and then driving home...!

Click the link, its Australian. And yes as a responsible person you should know how many drinks you can have without being over the legal limit to drive, at 0.05 or 0.08. You do know that these two figures are the generally accepted safe scientific limits that the avg person can be in order to drive a vehicle.

There is much evidence to support that the 0.05 limit is just to low from certain countries. Links to that are in this thread further back.

T runner

ART6 wrote: »

What I was actually getting at was that this arbitrary blood alcohol limit is simplistic and typical of the quality of regulation beloved of the cretins we call politicians nowadays.

This limit is accepted by medical experts (and politicians) the world over as the amount that puts as driver in the At risk categoey.

What is actually needed is legislation that nails the lunatics who think they can drink until they can't stand and then still drive

What we need is legisltion for idiots who think that two pints does not impair their ability to drive. (Try cycling a bike with a couple of pints on you and see how your balance is affected.)

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.

Therefore if someone has 10 pints over 10 hours they would be completely sober? Come off it now

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 people want to drink 2 pints and wait for 3 hours then drive home that fine ? And the people who drink two pints and drive home straight after (e.g a pub situation) if you intend friving home, then its one drink or else jail with the other criminals

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.

So now you know what to do. Drink your 2 pints and wait 3 hours then drive home. Simple.

Please everyone, stop this hysteria about what tiny amounts of alcohol can do. Excess alcohol is what causes most of the problems

Large volumes of alcohol cause many fatalities. The volume between 50-80 causes about 18 deaths and 100 injuries per year. All for that extra pint?

-

the law of diminishing returns is reached long before you get down to zero tolerence.

But its not reached by 50.

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.

Whats the point here?

Remember every road fatality causes the state 3 million and every serious road injury just under 400,000. Lets save some money (and a few lives/serious injuries)

T runner

optocynic wrote: »

Jesus... so, people are already analysiing how much they can drink under the new legislation... rather than just leave the car at home!

How pathetic are we as a nation that our entire existence has to revolve around alcohol? ... and then driving home...!

Exactly. And if this level of alcohol will really have no affect on the taker, then whats the point in taking it at all?

i.e if one pint has no affect (no buzz, feeling of well being) then why not drink a mineral or non alcoholic beer if they like the taste so much.

Villain

optocynic wrote: »

Why not do both?
We as a nation should demand it....

There is a lot of things as a Nation we should demand, the thing is we call for Legislation for things and then once its passed we think thats that sorted which is complete crap.

When Legislation is passed is when the work only really starts, you can pass law after law but if they aren't enforced you are wasting your time.

IMO what should happen is the following:

Limit is reduced to 20mg for all Provisional Drivers and Professional Drivers (Taxi Drivers etc)

Gardai setup 5 times as many checks as compared to last year with 70% of those checks been setup after 11pm and before 5am

The General Limt is lowered to 50 mg in 2013 if there hasn't been a further 10% reduction in Road Deaths over the next 2 years

Rural transports schemes are setup to part fund transport in areas with the publicans funding 50% of the cost and each service must service at least 3 pubs and a 40 mile radius

ceret

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Instant closure of every pub in rural areas.

Just like the smoking ban?

vinylrules

T runner wrote: »

Therefore if someone has 10 pints over 10 hours they would be completely sober? Come off it now

One standard drink is regarded as about half a pint, a small glass of wine or a standard measure of spirits. Five pints (not ten) plus ten hours (inclduding time spent drinking) should leave an average person clear of alcohol. As has already been posted here, the Australians give sound advice to their population on how to stay under the 50mg limit. Our nanny state rulers don't trust us with the facts, so they exaggerate everything frightening the life out of poor 'oul fellas - hence the backbenchers revolt. If the government or the RSA came out and stated the truth i.e that one or two pints is not likely to put anyone over the new limit they might have had a chance of getting this new limit through. Crying wolf is never a good idea.

vinylrules

Here's another Aussie link re above post. Scroll down about half way and you'll find the info I've pasted below

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html

Drinking limits advice

To stay below 0.05 BAC, drivers are advised to limit their drinking to:

For men: No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.
For women: No more than one standard drink in the first hour and no more than one every hour after that.

This is a conservative estimate that is designed to minimise the risk of exceeding the legal limit to drive. Because everyone is different, some people need to drink less to maintain a BAC level below the legal limit. This guide is based on advice from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

And that new limit will basically put a person of average mass who has had one pint of guiness over the legal limit!..

But someone who has had a slice of sherry triffle should be fine.. (unless my mother-in-law made the triffle!)?

Well somepeople might think that a sherry trifle is drinking and driving so I guess the scumbag comment might come back to haunt you?

The point is it is anyones opinion is relative and we have limits for a reason but be atleast reasonable in the debate instead of telling people what to do.

bog master

Ok lads and lassies, lets add some more fuel to the fire!

According to the NRA Report on car crashes in 2003, alcohol was a "factor in 36.5% of all fatalatiesThis includes pedestrian figures of 7.3% Now what constitutes a contributory factory? Having a BAC of .20 mg/100ml says them.

Of drivers who lost their lives, 75, who were killed, 13 tested positive and 62 were above the current legal, limit and the rest tested nil.

So, of the 301 sad and regrettable deaths, 191 were not alcohol related, 13 were positvie but below the current legal limit and 62 were above.

Bear in mind, they do not have complete figures for every crash.

Interesting reading www.rsa.ie./publications

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

Other than that you seem to support the status quo in both situations, we have two scenarios where you have a lower and an higher tolerance. The lower tolerance leads to fewer deaths, and the higher to more deaths. In one case, you choose the lower. In the other you choose the higher.

What are you trying to say here ? That just because I think there's no need to change the current law, that I'm somehow being inconsistent ?

Basically I know that - on an average night, having eaten and not being tired - I could probably manage 3 pints and drive; but the fact that that is borderline makes me perfectly happy to accept a fair law that is BELOW that, but not too low.

Going for 2 pints is a decent status quo.

bonkey wrote: »

Could it be that the difference between 50 and 80 is that it would directly effect your own situation with regards to the legality of your drinking-and-driving habits, whereas the difference between 80 and 100 is that it would only effect others?

Well, obviously we generally view changes as how they affect ourselves (e.g. a change in the legislation re fertiliser or gay marraige would have no effect on me) but the fact is that the current law is adequate and still permits a social life.

bonkey wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious, because from what I can see if the law was set to 50, you'd apparently be in support of raising it back to 80 (at the estimated cost of 18 lives per year). However, the law is 80, and if raising it to 100 meant another 18 lives a year, you've just clarified that you'd oppose that.

It's not that simple, and you know it. The risk between 80 and 100 is obviously greater, so it wouldn't "just" be 18; secondly, I wouldn't drive with more than 3 drinks in a few hours because I know that I wouldn't be safe.

So - speaking as an average person - the law is accurate.

Also, bear in mind that alcohol was "a factor" in thos 50-80mg cases; therefore it is not safe to imply that it was the only cause.

bonkey wrote: »

That would be analagous to suggesting we should ban alcohol...which no-one is suggesting.

Not quite; my point is that if the law - the speed limits, etc, were enforced - combined with people being responsible - then the total could easily be reduced. The fact that this is not done means that any suggestion that a new / changed law is "for safety reasons" is, quite frankly, bull.

bonkey wrote: »

If, for example, we found that we could save some lives / prevent some accidents by lowering speed-limits from 50 to 30 in urban and suburban housing areas (if that's not already done), and to 20 around schools and hospitals...would I support it? Abso-frickin-lutely...regardless of how it might inconvenience some.

No argument there. Because that makes sense. Preventing someone who is responsible and capable of driving from doing so does not.

bonkey wrote: »

We should clearly define areas (e.g. housing) where pedestrians have unquestioned right of way at all times. In all other areas, then it should be a punishable offence to run out into traffic in urban areas where there are facilities for safely crossing a road provided.

If that means that Joe Bloggs has to walk an extra couple of hundred metres to get to/from a pedestrian crossing, then so ****ing what.

Again, I agree, but why did you put in the caveat about facilities ? Because that's precisely what this is about......in an urban area (where cars are already doing 50kph) this would actually be less of an issue, compared to rural roads where cars are doing 80kph......and yet it is the rural area where there would be no such facility. And this is precisely the issue - there is no public transport in rural areas.

If you hadn't put in the caveat, I could take your argument as being consistent, but the fact that you included it proves my point; if there were no facilities you would be seriously inconvenienced - walking 3 miles or so - which equates to the argument pretty well.....would you wallk 3 miles to cross the road ?

Or does your caveat prove the point that your observation about how "as long as it doesn't adversely affect you" applies across the board ?

vinylrules

bog master wrote: »

Ok lads and lassies, lets add some more fuel to the fire!

According to the NRA Report on car crashes in 2003, alcohol was a "factor in 36.5% of all fatalatiesThis includes pedestrian figures of 7.3% Now what constitutes a contributory factory? Having a BAC of .20 mg/100ml says them.

Of drivers who lost their lives, 75, who were killed, 13 tested positive and 62 were above the current legal, limit and the rest tested nil.

So, of the 301 sad and regrettable deaths, 191 were not alcohol related, 13 were positvie but below the current legal limit and 62 were above.

Bear in mind, they do not have complete figures for every crash.

Interesting reading www.rsa.ie./publications

I've read this report in detail. Please bear in mind that the RSA failed to control for

(a) the global risk for accidents - ie the fact that some so-called alcohol related accidents would have happened anyway. A careless, reckless, speeding driver is a danger whether he has low levels of alcohol or none at all.

(b) the fact that some of the those low alcohol levels would also have involved drugs (having a couple of tabs of something, a snort of coke and a pint or two is a lethal cocktail - greater than the sum of its parts but since the above report just examined alcohol, excluding other substances, such an accident would come under the heading of a low BAC fatality,

(c) the report failed to establish blame in an accident e.g a sober driver runs a red light and smashes into a car with a driver with a glass of wine or a pint onboard, killing both. We all know who caused this crash but it will be written up in the report as "two alcohol related road fatalities."
another example - an elderly, sober driver has a heart attack and mows into a bus stop killing two blokes who've had a few pints - more alcohol related deaths but no drink driving!

Problem is - the RSA is still using those statistics, they are about as useful as property prices for 2003! Since then we've had a whole raft of laws, Random Breath Testing, more penalty points, tougher sentences etc.

stopped_clock

Sorry if it's been posted already (I'll admit that I haven't read the whole thread) but are there any statistics of the number of accidents caused by drivers between the old and new limits - either in Ireland or elsewhere?

Mad Finn

ART6 wrote: »

You might have noticed the word "local" in my comment. I don't have a circle of friends that is scattered all over Ireland:D

What I was actually getting at was that this arbitrary blood alcohol limit is simplistic and typical of the quality of regulation beloved of the cretins we call politicians nowadays. What is actually needed is legislation that nails the lunatics who think they can drink until they can't stand and then still drive.

I'm totally with you on that one. But it pisses me off that if I have a can of beer with my evening meal, as is my wont, then I won't be able to drive my daughter to her music class afterwards, even though I am not incapacitated in any way.

These pious pricks equating a civilised refreshing digestion-aiding drink like that with those who drive home after an evening propping up the bar are really pissing me off. And please please please this is NOT an urban v rural argument. City people need to drive to get around as well.

vinylrules

Mad Finn wrote: »

I'm totally with you on that one. But it pisses me off that if I have a can of beer with my evening meal, as is my wont, then I won't be able to drive my daughter to her music class afterwards, even though I am not incapacitated in any way.

These pious pricks equating a civilised refreshing digestion-aiding drink like that with those who drive home after an evening propping up the bar are really pissing me off. And please please please this is NOT an urban v rural argument. City people need to drive to get around as well.

Don't get me started Mad Finn - and I'm with you on that. I'm a Dubliner where drink driving simply isn't a major issue - in fact road fatalities in the capital are extremley rare despite something like 800,000 cars. Why? Traffic lights every couple of hundred yards, roundabouts, speed humps, decent, well-light roads, etc.etc etc.
A couple of weeks ago on a Saturday night, my teenage daughter rang and said she had gotten a bus home from the cinema, that would leave her 15 mins walk from home - could I pick her up? I had consumed a can and a half of Fosters - so I got in the car, picked her up, dropped her friend home - all perfectly safely. (I've 27 years driving experience, no accidents, no penalty points, no near misses etc.etc) Would I have picked her up after four or five cans?. No - it's against the law! But this, "never, ever, ever" stuff drives me insane.

Mad_Max

vinylrules wrote: »

I'm a Dubliner where drink driving simply isn't a major issue - in fact road fatalities in the capital are extremley rare despite something like 800,000 cars.

I'd need to see some serious statistics to prove that. Having worked in the bar trade around Dublin I can say from my personal experience that there is a problem with drink driving in Dublin.

SeanW

stopped_clock wrote: »

Sorry if it's been posted already (I'll admit that I haven't read the whole thread) but are there any statistics of the number of accidents caused by drivers between the old and new limits - either in Ireland or elsewhere?

No, not in Ireland at least. And according to those promoting the change, this information is totally superfluous.

Needless to say, not all of us agree ...

vinylrules

Mad_Max wrote: »

I'd need to see some serious statistics to prove that. Having worked in the bar trade around Dublin I can say from my personal experience that there is a problem with drink driving in Dublin.

I didn't say that there weren't people drinking and driving in Dublin. I said that it didn't seem to be a problem in that it doesn't appear to translate into accidents. This is a fact. Road deaths in Dublin are extremley rare - and typically involve accidents such as pedestrians or cyclists being hit by trucks. There was one year, I think it was 2004 when not one single driver died in the Dublin area.

Yes, I see people having a few drinks in my local pub and driving home the short distance on excellent roads to their housing estates. Been living in this area ten years and can't remember any fatalities or serious injuries.

There is a complteltely different dynamic at play in Dublin or other urban areas when it comes to driving, compared with rural areas. For example, I occasionally have sunday lunch in the Stillorgan Orchard which is a ten/twelve minute drive away. The first thing I encounter leaving the pub are speed ramps (on that old back road) I then hit the traffic lights for the N11. There are no less than ten more sets of traffic lights to get through plus four mini-roundabouts to encounter before I get home. On average I'll be stopped at a half of those traffic lights. The maximum speed limit is 60Kmh most of the way with some 50km roads and - there are cycle lanes and pedestrian bridges too. Safer in every way for all road users, even those who might be slighty impaired.

Compare that with leaving a pub in a country village - where you can probably drive at 80k or even 100k on a narrow, un-lit, badly marked, winding road with high hedges, ditches or stone walls either side. Yes Dublin roads are much safer than rural roads - which is presumably why this weekend the Gardai are targetting Dublin for their major enforcement campaign!!!

paddyland

vinylrules wrote: »

...Yes Dublin roads are much safer than rural roads - which is presumably why this weekend the Gardai are targetting Dublin for their major enforcement campaign!!!

It's not so much about targetting drink drivers.

It's about the best way to make the minister look good.

EVERYTHING in society is relevent only in so far as a FF minister stands to make media kudos from it.

It's a pity so much of society seems blind to that fact.

stopped_clock

SeanW wrote: »

No [statistics available], not in Ireland at least. And according to those promoting the change, this information is totally superfluous.

Needless to say, not all of us agree ...

Thanks SeanW.

In that case, it's impossible to come to a rational conclusion on the issue imo.

I don't particularly have a position on it - any legislation has to balance civil liberties against safety, so for me it's a question of line-drawing. Any of the debates I've heard on tv/radio tend really to be about whether drink driving should be prohibited or not; rather than the effects of the proposed incremental change.

(I suppose it's a bit like how the Lisbon Treaty referendum came down to whether 'Europe' was good or bad, not how it would change.)

bog master

Some valid points on hers pro and con and some over the top attitudes also.
Personally I doubt the new limit is needed, just proper enforcement of current laws and a better education campaign about how much is safe before you are over the limit, but also each individual has the responsibility to know when to drive or not to. Over the years we keep hearing 2 pints and you are safe, then 1 1/2 pints, now one pint etc.

Yes, alcohol does impair our judgement and slows down reactions. But dont think the driving test judges your reactions. A 25 year old is going to have much quicker reactions than a 70 year old! Do we ban the 70 year old from driving because his sober reactions are slower than the 25 year old with a pint or two on him?

Now for the next step, I think all shift work should be banned as studies show it can be nearly as dangerous as low level drinking. Driver fatigue is attributed to 25% of crashes in Victoria. Shift workers are 6 times more likely to crash. A UK study says tired drivers account for 1 in 5 deaths on motorways. The European Transport Safety Council reckons that 20% of road crashes are attributed to fatigue/tiredness.

stopped_clock

T runner wrote: »

The volume between 50-80 causes about 18 deaths and 100 injuries per year.

T runner - Are these Irish figures? Where did they come from?

stopped_clock

bog master wrote: »

Do we ban the 70 year old from driving because his sober reactions are slower than the 25 year old with a pint or two on him?

Ultimately, elderly people are prevented from driving. That said, I think it's on GPs advice etc, rather than an arbitrary cutoff at age 70 or so.

bog master

stopped_clock wrote: »

Ultimately, elderly people are prevented from driving. That said, I think it's on GPs advice etc, rather than an arbitrary cutoff at age 70 or so.

At the age of 70, one must get a certification of fitness from a GP. What this entails, I do not know, but I would guess it would be quite cursory. However, go back to my point and substitute a 65 year old. Again, his or her reflexes/reactions times would generally be much slower than someone
30 to 40 years younger.

vinylrules

bog master wrote: »

Now for the next step, I think all shift work should be banned as studies show it can be nearly as dangerous as low level drinking. Driver fatigue is attributed to 25% of crashes in Victoria. Shift workers are 6 times more likely to crash. A UK study says tired drivers account for 1 in 5 deaths on motorways. The European Transport Safety Council reckons that 20% of road crashes are attributed to fatigue/tiredness.

All true. Let's stamp out yawning and driving! Seriously, I think it's possible to measure fatigue toxins! But why stop there. I think all parents of new born babies should be banned from driving for a period. Any parents here remember those sleepless night with a collicky baby where you were knackered for days on end? I certainly do - it took a lot of coffee and cans of coke to keep me awake during the day!

As for the elderly - there's no doubt that all their reactions and faculties are impaired by old age. The only reason they have relatively low incidence of accidents is their exposure is also low. In other words, they tend not do drive at those dangerous times such as rush hour and late at night. My old aunt uses her little hatchback to go to the supermarket, to mass and the odd funeral - and that's about it! Still, as people live longer it's going to become an issue. Take a look at the chart in this article - pretty scary and reinforces the notion that it's the under 25s and over 75s that are the most dangerous on the road.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203577304574276442336625248.html

vinylrules

stopped_clock wrote: »

T runner - Are these Irish figures? Where did they come from?

I don't know where that figure of 18 drivers between 50mg and 80mg came from. I have a feeling that it was the number over three years. The RSA figure for 2003 was 8 drivers killed with that level of BAC. You can find it below on Page 18, table 9 under the heading "BAC of Killed drivers". That's 8 drivers, which is 4.2% of the total. Figures for 2009 would be much lower as the overall death rate is well down.

http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Alcohol%20In%20Fatal%20Road%20Crashes%20in%20Ireland%202003.pdf?PHPSESSID=e33adc55c3a88bafa57e927158e223b0

T runner

vinylrules wrote: »

One standard drink is regarded as about half a pint, a small glass of wine or a standard measure of spirits. Five pints (not ten) plus ten hours (inclduding time spent drinking) should leave an average person clear of alcohol. As has already been posted here, the Australians give sound advice to their population on how to stay under the 50mg limit. Our nanny state rulers don't trust us with the facts, so they exaggerate everything frightening the life out of poor 'oul fellas - hence the backbenchers revolt. If the government or the RSA came out and stated the truth i.e that one or two pints is not likely to put anyone over the new limit they might have had a chance of getting this new limit through. Crying wolf is never a good idea.

But is it not the Nanny state mentality amonst the population that people need to be told what 50mg means in this detail?

If you want to drink and drive, find out what it means. Dont start complaining that nanny wont tell you. People demand that the government does everything for tem and complain about a nanny state when this doesnt happen.

2 pints is likely to put you over the limit BTW