quote:There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated
And what about the dangerous and stupid things that perfectly sober people do?
Can we start arresting all the dangerous and stupid people, and stop discriminating between drunk and sober?
Makes me think of Ron White - "I was drunk in the bar... they threw me into public"
It would be far better to install breathalizers in the bars and have key checks along with the coat and gun checks most places have. After that you just don't get your keys if you're drunk and you don't get arrested. You get a cab and get sent home. I seem to remember hearing something about this and people getting all uptight about it. I think it might be worth a revisit.
I was thinking about something though. Is a bar public? Imean I can throw open the doors to my house to anyone and everyone and that still isn't public, is it? It's still my private property. Until I, as the owner, object to people on my property there isn't any legal recourse for the police to even interact. Is it a zoning or licensing issue? Something that designates a portion of the privately owned business and property as an extension of the public domain? Can anyone clarify that for me?
GD
<EDIT - wow just realized how old this thread was... sry to be dredging>
Regarding public vs. private property, a bar is indeed private property, but its a public place, as the general public has access to it. That's how they justify it as public intoxication. At least that's how I've heard it explained.
The real problem here is there are no checks. No sobriety tests are performed. No breathalizers are given. Even if you ask for one, they won't do it. So there's no way for you whatsoever to prove in court that you were not drunk. Most people would choose to pay their $250 fine rather than hire a lawyer for $600 to fight it, anyway -- and they know this.
Stories are already surfacing about ridiculous arrests. There was the man who was arrested for getting drunk at a hotel bar on the way to his room. Just exactly how was he a threat to himself and others in this case? Then there was the woman was arrested for slurring, even though she and the bar owner both explained vehemently that she had MS. (I have not independently verified these stories, but I trusted the source.)
A lot of bars here in Portland have a system much like you described; especially at upscale bars and clubs. Key check and breathalizer. I was at a concert a while back, one where they X your hand if you're underage and police showed up because the bartender reported 21+ present buying drinks for underage people. Ironically enough, he was the only one arrested.
Mostly because police avoid concerts like the plauge; I mean, you could go in and bust half the people there for drug use, but I think you'd see some violent protest.
I always thought the amount of Jesus poured into a state effected this, though.
(Amount of Jesus + Number of middle age ladies + Number of churches in immediate vicinity ) / 100 = probability you will be arrested for doing something completely sane.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 04-17-2006 02:40
In my part of the world, bar owners and bartenders AND homeowners/ hosts of house party's...can be charged with a variety of offences should a patron/guest be 'overserved' then leave the bar/home and be involved in a car crash or some other incident causing injury or property damage.
quote:GrythusDraconis said: It would be far better to install breathalizers in the bars
and have key checks along with the coat and gun checks most places have.
"Gun checks"? R we really still living in the 1800's?
As for breathalizers, well until they change the laws, such an idea won't work. But I will support it.
But I wonder if the majority of the % of vehicular problems exist from bars. Not all acciedents come from bar patrons, so where does the majority reside? I surmise that they are teenagers-high school, and early adults-college. So if that were the case, should bars be STRAPPED, if the majority is not their fault?
Perhaps those who have this machine, called AWOL (Alcohol Without Liquid), which vaporises spirits with pure oxygen, that is then inhaled, which goes straight into the bloodstream via the lungs, might be a better option.
quote:NoJive said: ok.... so you've lost me here a bit mr zynx.... are you saying that inhalation of an intoxicant is preferable to ingestion of an intoxicant ?
YES I AM! Now if you have specific questions of this issue, please ask me.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 04-18-2006 05:03
quote:YES I AM!
ok... so let's start with 'your' definition of an intoxicant and beginning with your preferred intoxicant tell me why you prefer 'inhaling' whatever that may be.
quote:NoJive said: ok... so let's start with 'your' definition of an intoxicant and beginning with your preferred intoxicant tell me why you prefer 'inhaling' whatever that may be.
quote:DL-44 said: Um...yeah: why? how?
I mentioned it. It's called AWOL. Last I heard that it was being banned in England, and Australia. There's no hangover, and no calories.
Now compare that to all of the problems ingesting alcohol causes. I think I'd rather inhale.
I hear that one of the reasons they banned it was that it is linked to causing brain damage.
" What Others Are Saying:
"It feels so clean!"
"What a great light feeling."
"No heaviness."
"This is the greatest thing since the still."
"If you hate hangovers, you'll love this."
No, I mean alcohol abuse (liquor or beer) is scientifically proven to affect the brain. Why would they ban alcohol vaporizers as opposed to alcoholic drinks? Because drinking alcohol has its own system of checks and balances, so to speak?
But I wonder if the majority of the % of vehicular problems exist from bars. Not all acciedents come from bar patrons, so where does the majority reside? I surmise that they are teenagers-high school, and early adults-college. So if that were the case, should bars be STRAPPED, if the majority is not their fault?
Perhaps those who have this machine, called AWOL (Alcohol Without Liquid), which vaporises spirits with pure oxygen, that is then inhaled, which goes straight into the bloodstream via the lungs, might be a better option.
Ok, so I'm still at a loss as to why and how using such an idiotic device is in any way a better option as relates to either drunk driving or the problem of police arresting people in bars?
You still get 'drunk' with such a device. It is, after all, the only point in using such a device.
Your intoxication would still be detectable, and would still have the expected results when attempting to operate a vehicle.
Well, the point is to get drunk. But like coffee or any other psychoactive, the ritual of drinking/using becomes a part of the pleasurable experience. So I'm not exactly sure of the appeal.
But, like smoking/snuffing, the effects will come and go much faster than when drunk, I would think. So perhaps you could take a few hits, be drunk, socialize, do whatever you want to do, and be more readily able to drive more quickly.
quote:cfb said: No, I mean alcohol abuse (liquor or beer) is scientifically proven to affect the brain. Why would they ban alcohol vaporizers as opposed to alcoholic drinks? Because drinking alcohol has its own system of checks and balances, so to speak?
I think the jury is still out, but there might some issue with having the alcoholic effects immedaitely sent to the brain, and people not aware of how many huffs, and inhales equals a buzz. So maybe alcohol poisoning could be the issue. Of course, "all things in moderation", might answer that possibility.
quote:
cfb said: But, like smoking/snuffing, the effects will come and go much faster than when drunk, I would think. So perhaps you could take a few hits, be drunk, socialize, do whatever you want to do, and be more readily able to drive more quickly.
Right. Try it slow, and see how it effects your particular body, then go from there.
quote:DL-44 said: You still get 'drunk' with such a device. It is, after all, the only point in using such a device. Your intoxication would still be detectable, and would still have the expected results when attempting to operate a vehicle.
I believe the effects, like cfb mentioned wear off faster than drinking the alcohol. Which would account for people to be less intoxicated, while waiting less time, than a person who ingests alcohol. I still think it's stupid to justify drunk driving offenses, by arresting people for being drunk in a bar, BEFORE they leave. But if this form of alcohol consumption, allows people to SOBER quicker than ingesting alcohol, then why isn't that a benefit?
I thinks it's one hour of wait time for every 12 oz beer, or 1 shot of hard alcohol, for the human body to maintain sobriety. I do not know what this machine offers, but since the human body, when ingesting alcohol, breaks down the alcohol at a constant rate, inhaling it would eliminate that constant breakdown, as well as the consistent alcohol absorption.
Take a few hits, get a quick buzz, then wait a few, and the buzz goes. It's got to be a buzz that runs it's course faster than ingesting alcohol. So today we say, drink some water, and wait it out, then your sober enough to drive. This machine would eliminate those scenarios, and being sober to drive, or legal to drive, would truly take less time, less calories, and would give the human body less long term medical problems.
Of course the jury's still out on the potential possibilities.
It's got to be a buzz that runs it's course faster than ingesting alcohol.
Well...you say "it's got to...", and while part of me wants to believe that, I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before agreeing that there is any such benefit.
Of course, it would only be a benefit in a very limited context anyway.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 04-21-2006 08:59
OK you guys are losing me here. Let's start with a couple of assumptions.
1) .08 is the legal limit
2) 2 guys same size (approx)
1 guy uses the machine and blows/reaches .08 in "x" amount of time.
The other guy 'drinks' and blows/reaches the legal limit in "xx" amount of time.
Seems to me that regardless of how 'fast' you get there once your blood/alcohol level reaches .08 it's going to take both guys about the same amount of time to get back to zero... just that the guy who reached .08 first....will be sober first.
quote:DL-44 said: Well...you say "it's got to...", and while part of me wants to believe that, I'd like to see some actual evidence of that before agreeing that there is any such benefit. Of course, it would only be a benefit in a very limited context anyway.
After some further research; 85-90% of ALL alcohol is absorbed through the lower intestine. After that the liver filters the alcohol from our bloodstream. And it does so at a constant rate. No matter what. Only the size of the liver can change it's filration ability. Of course genetics always plays a part.
Now inhaling alcohol has it's own destructive demons. This I am sure. Yet whether or not they are worse is debtable. But for now, compared to the already proven damages that ingesting alcohol can produce on the human body, I think it's a safer alternative. Of course all things in moderation.
I have dealt with alcohol for many years in my short life, and I'd like to think that I have some "life" knowledge of the subject. As many of you others might have. With little or no studies on this subject, I am weary of it's affect on me. But as usual I see the medical establishment placing fear of the unknown above common sense.
" Professor Oliver James, head of clinical medical sciences at Newcastle University, said: "By snorting the alcohol it can go directly into the brainwithout being filtered by the liver." side-note; The liver filters alcohol from the blood, BUT only AFTER it has introduced into the bloodstream. Professor or not, I think he's wrong. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9177271?source=Evening%20Standard
" When a shot of vodka or whiskey is poured into an AWOL machine and inhaled, however, alcohol enters the lungs and diffuses directly into the bloodstream, causing a much more rapid and potentially more intense buzz. "
" Are you ready? Are you ready? The let's bring it on! " http://www.slate.com/id/2106393/
posted 03-25-2006 03:13
