The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

A few years ago I was sitting in the bleachers at Fenway Park alongside about half a dozen college boys from BU -- and every half inning, they'd have another round of beer, those big ballpark beers in the souvenir cups. By the fifth inning, they were smashed out of their heads, and by the sixth, one of them was passed out cold -- an unhealthy bright red color, to boot. He was slumped forward in his seat, head between his legs, completely unconscious -- and instead of calling the usher for help, his friends *used him as an end table to hold their own beers.* He didn't come to until the game was almost over. If that's the "college experience," I'm glad I never went.

 

[Miss Golightly]

I wonder if they started charging drunk people for their treatment in the A&E would it make any kind of a difference? Hitting them in their pocket might make them think twice about getting so blotto - taking up valuable space for people who genuinely need medical assistance.

I probably told this story before about my Mum having to take one of my brothers to the A&E and in staggered Brendan Behan, blind drunk, and demanding to be seen first - my Mum was livid. Makes you feel sorry for doctors and nurses having to deal with idiotic and rude intoxicated patients.

 

[Feraud]

A few years ago I was sitting in the bleachers at Fenway Park alongside about half a dozen college boys from BU -- and every half inning, they'd have another round of beer, those big ballpark beers in the souvenir cups. By the fifth inning, they were smashed out of their heads, and by the sixth, one of them was passed out cold -- an unhealthy bright red color, to boot. He was slumped forward in his seat, head between his legs, completely unconscious -- and instead of calling the usher for help, his friends *used him as an end table to hold their own beers.* He didn't come to until the game was almost over. If that's the "college experience," I'm glad I never went.

Drunken college kids are the main reason I've grown to dislike going to ballgames and the track. A half dozen idiots were removed from a recent Mets game my son and I attended. Our section had to deal with distracting behavior and lewd language before security intervened.
My last visit to Belmont Park turned me off to the track due to number and behavior of Frat-rats.
"Pre-gaming" is big part of what these morons call a good time.

 

[Widebrim]

A few years ago I was sitting in the bleachers at Fenway Park alongside about half a dozen college boys from BU -- and every half inning, they'd have another round of beer, those big ballpark beers in the souvenir cups. By the fifth inning, they were smashed out of their heads, and by the sixth, one of them was passed out cold -- an unhealthy bright red color, to boot. He was slumped forward in his seat, head between his legs, completely unconscious -- and instead of calling the usher for help, his friends *used him as an end table to hold their own beers.* He didn't come to until the game was almost over. If that's the "college experience," I'm glad I never went.

Believe me, many of us didn't didn't include that "experience" while at State U...

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Pre-gaming" is big part of what these morons call a good time.

What always bugs me is that Sox tickets are not cheap, not even the "cheap seats." Why spend all that money if you aren't even going to pay attention to the game? These days, when I go, wherever I sit, I'm invariably the only one in the section keeping a scorecard -- everybody else is swilling beer, acting the fool, and taking pictures of themselves to post on Facebook. If all you want to do is get drunk, go do it under a bridge with the rest of the bums.

 

[Noirblack]

Most cases of excessive drinking involve youth. The vast majority of young drinkers will have experiences of hangovers, inappropriate social interactions, and all the other negatives that come from drinking to excess. Most will get through this phase of their lives, where they are basically experimenting. Some will not live through this stage of their lives. They end up dead from car crashes or other misadventures. Once a person is in middle age, excessive drinking becomes more rare.

What I don't like about drinking is the response of government to it in areas where there is a real danger to the public - i.e. drinking and driving. If the worst you do is fall down drunk outside of a bar, I can accept that. If you get behind the wheel of a car with alcohol in your system, that is another story. And still you can legally do this here in Canada where I live. In most parts of the country, you can legally drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, because the government says you are not impaired at that level. I don't understand why any amount of alcohol is allowed for a driver.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

I don't get sloppy drunk. Never have. I'm actually wondering if something is wrong with me. I don't drink very often -- once every 2 or 3 months I'll go out and get drunk. But I get drunk, reach a certain point, and then I come down off of it -- no matter how much more I drink. And I remember everything that happens. I've never blacked out or passed out in my life. I have thrown up, though lol But only at home I've just never made a complete ass of myself by being drunk. I just get very talkative and that's it.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

A few years ago I was sitting in the bleachers at Fenway Park alongside about half a dozen college boys from BU -- and every half inning, they'd have another round of beer, those big ballpark beers in the souvenir cups. By the fifth inning, they were smashed out of their heads, and by the sixth, one of them was passed out cold -- an unhealthy bright red color, to boot. He was slumped forward in his seat, head between his legs, completely unconscious -- and instead of calling the usher for help, his friends *used him as an end table to hold their own beers.* He didn't come to until the game was almost over. If that's the "college experience," I'm glad I never went.

And it doesn't even bother anyone that these are the people who are going to be in charge running things in a few years??? :eeek: Yeah, I get the idea it might be a part of the "young and stupid" phase. But the fundamental difference between then and now is that while youth may fade stupid remains.

 

[Feraud]

What always bugs me is that Sox tickets are not cheap, not even the "cheap seats." Why spend all that money if you aren't even going to pay attention to the game? These days, when I go, wherever I sit, I'm invariably the only one in the section keeping a scorecard -- everybody else is swilling beer, acting the fool, and taking pictures of themselves to post on Facebook. If all you want to do is get drunk, go do it under a bridge with the rest of the bums.

Exactly! The ticket prices are not cheap nowadays. To spend that kind of money only to barely remember the game or get tossed out is an amazingly stupid way to spend an evening.

There is nothing wrong with not getting sloppy drunk.

 

[Undertow]

What I don't like about drinking is the response of government to it in areas where there is a real danger to the public - i.e. drinking and driving. If the worst you do is fall down drunk outside of a bar, I can accept that. If you get behind the wheel of a car with alcohol in your system, that is another story. And still you can legally do this here in Canada where I live. In most parts of the country, you can legally drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, because the government says you are not impaired at that level. I don't understand why any amount of alcohol is allowed for a driver.

A single drink will not impair one enough in split second decision making. Two drinks? Perhaps. The limit of .08 is about two drinks in an average person with average tolerance. Going out to eat and having two drinks throughout the night shouldn't bar someone from getting home.

On the other hand, if you're a commercial driver in the states (trucking, construction, etc.) you have a limit of .04 or less depending on the state - and 0% while on the job.

 

[Noirblack]

A single drink will not impair one enough in split second decision making. Two drinks? Perhaps. The limit of .08 is about two drinks in an average person with average tolerance. Going out to eat and having two drinks throughout the night shouldn't bar someone from getting home.

On the other hand, if you're a commercial driver in the states (trucking, construction, etc.) you have a limit of .04 or less depending on the state - and 0% while on the job.

If 0.08 is ok for the average person, then wouldn't it impair some of those below average? I'm just saying I don't like current laws because there is this grey area. I don't believe that every driver under 0.08 is safe. Some at 0.05 are safe, some are unsafe. But since there is no way to determine individually for each driver whether they are safe or not, wouldn't it be better to have a law that says zero is the only legal level? Some countries have this.

 

[1961MJS]

If 0.08 is ok for the average person, then wouldn't it impair some of those below average? I'm just saying I don't like current laws because there is this grey area. I don't believe that every driver under 0.08 is safe. Some at 0.05 are safe, some are unsafe. But since there is no way to determine individually for each driver whether they are safe or not, wouldn't it be better to have a law that says zero is the only legal level? Some countries have this.

Hi

While in theory, driving with absolutely no alcohol is great, it's not really measurable or reasonable. Most cough syrup contains alcohol, as do some other medications. Some of us, do on occasion use cough syrup so that we can actually make it through the work day, and we pretty much have to drive here in the US. In addition, as a sometime test engineer, no measurement is exact. The smaller amount that you have to measure, the harder it is to do so accurately. Measuring a 50% blood alcohol level is much more accurate than a 0.08 blood alcohol level, (and it's easier to get the needle in cause the subject is embalmed).

Actually, going out to eat and having two beers will put you in serious danger of being over the limit. Here in Wichita, our police/city government for loves that $5,000 per DUI. In my opinion, they're using public safety as an excuse to get more money to play with. First build an entertainment district full of bars, second act upset that someone there is drunk, three flood the place with police at $5,000 a pop per DUI ($5,000 is according to the city's public service announcements).

Later

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Here in Wichita, our police/city government for loves that $5,000 per DUI. In my opinion, they're using public safety as an excuse to get more money to play with. First build an entertainment district full of bars, second act upset that someone there is drunk, three flood the place with police at $5,000 a pop per DUI ($5,000 is according to the city's public service announcements).

On a similar token, I sometimes can't help but suspect that No U-Turn signs are strategically placed to create the most inconvenience and maximize opportunities for revenue generation. As for the bars it's a win-win situation for the city because the bars are considered "high revenue" businesses that are taxed at a higher rate and the revenue from the DUIs that these bars generate are icing on the cake.

 

[1961MJS]

On a similar token, I sometimes can't help but suspect that No U-Turn signs are strategically placed to create the most inconvenience and maximize opportunities for revenue generation. As for the bars it's a win-win situation for the city because the bars are considered "high revenue" businesses that are taxed at a higher rate and the revenue from the DUIs that these bars generate are icing on the cake.

Exactly, and then the wife wondered why I didn't want to spend New Year's Eve there?

 

[sheeplady]

Actually, going out to eat and having two beers will put you in serious danger of being over the limit. Here in Wichita, our police/city government for loves that $5,000 per DUI. In my opinion, they're using public safety as an excuse to get more money to play with. First build an entertainment district full of bars, second act upset that someone there is drunk, three flood the place with police at $5,000 a pop per DUI ($5,000 is according to the city's public service announcements).

There's a couple simple solutions to this: have a designated driver; have one beer; or space the beers and driving so that they are out of the person's system. There's no excuse for driving above a .08 limit. Bars serve more than alcohol.

I've got to say that I have no pity for drunk or high drivers. There's always a simple solution: don't drive. There is no legitimate excuse of why a drunk or high person has to drive and possibly kill somebody. I've never driven drunk. I drink regularly, am a lightweight, and I like my alcohol- if I can do it, everybody can do it. There's no excuse. If a person is in a situation where one person might have to drive in an emergency (and there is no other way to get someplace) maybe that person shouldn't be drinking more than 2 drinks in an hour.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

If 0.08 is ok for the average person, then wouldn't it impair some of those below average? I'm just saying I don't like current laws because there is this grey area. I don't believe that every driver under 0.08 is safe. Some at 0.05 are safe, some are unsafe. But since there is no way to determine individually for each driver whether they are safe or not, wouldn't it be better to have a law that says zero is the only legal level? Some countries have this.

I note that you are a fellow Canadian; perhaps you aren't aware that Canada's Criminal Code actually has two provisions for impaired driving. They are, in simple terms, "operation while impaired" and "operation while having a blood alcohol level of .08". The police may lay either or both charges on an impaired driver in many cases, and neither charge is dependent on the other. The supreme court has ruled that "operation while impaired" is considered to be any marked departure from sobriety, so that even if a person is below the .08 limit, if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs while operating a motor vehicle, they can be charged and convicted under the impairment provision.

Here's the text for reference:
[h=1]253. Operation while impaired[/h]
253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

 

[Noirblack]

I note that you are a fellow Canadian; perhaps you aren't aware that Canada's Criminal Code actually has two provisions for impaired driving. They are, in simple terms, "operation while impaired" and "operation while having a blood alcohol level of .08". The police may lay either or both charges on an impaired driver in many cases, and neither charge is dependent on the other. The supreme court has ruled that "operation while impaired" is considered to be any marked departure from sobriety, so that even if a person is below the .08 limit, if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs while operating a motor vehicle, they can be charged and convicted under the impairment provision.

Here's the text for reference:
[h=1]253. Operation while impaired[/h]
253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

The driving while impaired is a grey area. How is it tested on the road and proven in court? I think it is very helpful if someone is driving dangerously because of marijuana or other drugs that a breathalyser can't yet test for. I still think with alcohol, any amount greater than zero and less than 0.08 should be automatically charged with impaired (so there is no judgement call on the side of the road by a police officer). There can be a separate charge for 0.08 or more, but either way, no one should be legally allowed to drive with any alcohol in their system.

Here in Ontario, they have recently banned using any hand-held electronic devices such as phones or GPS. They did this because of the danger of distracted driving which we are told is as great as (if not worse than) impaired driving. If you get caught with a phone to your face here, you will get a charge as the police are enforcing the new law. But if you are at 0.07 blood alcohol the police can just say "on your way".

The laws are inconsistent here and it makes me a bit batty!

 

[Noirblack]

Hi

While in theory, driving with absolutely no alcohol is great, it's not really measurable or reasonable. Most cough syrup contains alcohol, as do some other medications. Some of us, do on occasion use cough syrup so that we can actually make it through the work day, and we pretty much have to drive here in the US. In addition, as a sometime test engineer, no measurement is exact. The smaller amount that you have to measure, the harder it is to do so accurately. Measuring a 50% blood alcohol level is much more accurate than a 0.08 blood alcohol level, (and it's easier to get the needle in cause the subject is embalmed).

Actually, going out to eat and having two beers will put you in serious danger of being over the limit. Here in Wichita, our police/city government for loves that $5,000 per DUI. In my opinion, they're using public safety as an excuse to get more money to play with. First build an entertainment district full of bars, second act upset that someone there is drunk, three flood the place with police at $5,000 a pop per DUI ($5,000 is according to the city's public service announcements).

Later

The instructions of cough medicines (both syrups and pills) usually say not to operate heavy machinery. That would include automobiles, wouldn't it? If yo take cough syrup and it contains alcohol and you then drive while the law of the land says zero alcohol, then as a rational informed adult you are taking your chances with the law and might be charged. What is wrong with expecting drivers to make appropriate choices about medication? Take a pill instead of syrup and you will be ok (at least legally as there may be lots if things in all kinds of medications that make your drowsy).

As for measurement, we use a device called a breathalyser here in Canada. There is no blood test to the best of my knowledge (maybe in some cases if a driver is passed out at the scene of an accident). But at any rate, it is almost always a breathalyser that is used. They stand up in court and have been deemed reliable enough for a court of law, so I can't see a problem with measurement.

As for Wichita, if I knew about the enforcement efforts in the entertainment district there, I would certainly not drive after drinking there (anywhere for that matter). Wichita must have taxis. If not, you can use a designated driver in your group. Or a city bus if they have them. It seems entirely reasonable to me to take the position that you can drink all you want, but driving after that is forbidden.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I'm always the designated driver. I either have one beer, or none at all. It's cheaper to drink at home and I'm friends with the owner of our hangout, so if I'm driving, he'll give me free soda. Some bars do that to promote Designated Drivers, too.

 

[Pompidou]

They sell breathalyzers that anyone can buy, presumably affordably, if you're one of those people inclined to reach .08 quicker than others. I was considering one for myself. I'm probably .09 just by sitting at the same table as an unopened beer, so I hate to think what I might be after actually drinking one.