"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
Oh ****. I used to smoke. I don't now, but I'd rather smoke than be
one
of those sad ****s that 'vape'. WTF is the purpose of vaping?

But you are already a 'sad ****'?

It is not I who lacks the willpower to stop smoking and needs a
substitute for an addiction.


Next you will be saying that you have never have a wank.

Why? That is on topic for this group.


Will this thread have a happy ending?

Guess that depends on your apprentices fingering your Vanessa.

"David Lang" wrote in message
...

So what happens if you are giving a lift to a 17 year old smoker?
Presumably he can smoke, but you can't?

Who cares, the police have already stated that they won't be policing it

On 18/10/2015 21:09, Phil L wrote:
"David Lang" wrote in message
...

So what happens if you are giving a lift to a 17 year old smoker?
Presumably he can smoke, but you can't?

Who cares, the police have already stated that they won't be policing it

I suspect the only time a driver will be prosecuted will when there's an
accident and it later transpires there was a child in the car, just to
put the boot in.

Much the same with alcohol transgressions.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2015 17:25, Chris French wrote:
In message , David Lang
writes
On 18/10/2015 13:51, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/10/2015 13:28, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-10-17, Robin wrote:
charles wrote:
and if I give a lift to someone as part of my charitable work, I
have
to display a NO SMOKING sign in the car.

Have you been told what to do if you are driving on a motorway with
2 or
more passengers when one of them starts smoking?

They find themselves standing on the hard shoulder.
+1


Standing? Why not knock them out and then leave them lying in the
hard
shoulder?
+1 and bonus points.

Out of interest, who is prosecuted, the driver or the smoker?

I think it's both.


Yup,

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-tobacco-e-cig
arettes-and-smoking-1-october-2015/new-rules-about-tobacco-e-cigarettes-a
nd-smoking-1-october-2015


It says "for a driver (including a provisional driver) not to stop someone
smoking in these circumstances".

I'm not sure what the precise act wording is, but "to stop" someone
smoking is not instantaneous. Its not clear what steps the driver can take
without incurring the wrath of any other law, such as stopping on a
motorway? Or should that be considered an emergency?

Not an emergency so much as the only sensible way to do that.

Same with say one of the kids behaving like
a little brat and refusing to wear the seat belt.

On 18/10/15 18:42, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
Oh ****. I used to smoke. I don't now, but I'd rather smoke than be
one
of those sad ****s that 'vape'. WTF is the purpose of vaping?

But you are already a 'sad ****'?

It is not I who lacks the willpower to stop smoking and needs a
substitute for an addiction.


Next you will be saying that you have never have a wank.

Why? That is on topic for this group.

DIY...

On 18/10/15 18:53, ARW wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
Oh ****. I used to smoke. I don't now, but I'd rather smoke than
be one
of those sad ****s that 'vape'. WTF is the purpose of vaping?

But you are already a 'sad ****'?

It is not I who lacks the willpower to stop smoking and needs a
substitute for an addiction.


Next you will be saying that you have never have a wank.

Why? That is on topic for this group.


Will this thread have a happy ending?


I see what you did there

In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 18/10/2015 17:25, Chris French wrote:
In message , David Lang
writes
On 18/10/2015 13:51, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/10/2015 13:28, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-10-17, Robin wrote:
charles wrote:
and if I give a lift to someone as part of my charitable work, I
have
to display a NO SMOKING sign in the car.

Have you been told what to do if you are driving on a motorway with
2 or
more passengers when one of them starts smoking?

They find themselves standing on the hard shoulder.
+1


Standing? Why not knock them out and then leave them lying in the hard
shoulder?
+1 and bonus points.

Out of interest, who is prosecuted, the driver or the smoker?

I think it's both.


Yup,

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-tobacco-e-cig
arettes-and-smoking-1-october-2015/new-rules-about-tobacco-e-cigarettes-a
nd-smoking-1-october-2015


It says "for a driver (including a provisional driver) not to stop
someone smoking in these circumstances".

I'm not sure what the precise act wording is, but "to stop" someone
smoking is not instantaneous. Its not clear what steps the driver can
take without incurring the wrath of any other law, such as stopping on
a motorway? Or should that be considered an emergency?


The precise wording is:

"if you are the driver, to fail to prevent smoking in a private vehicle
with someone under age 18 present"

The normal approach is for guidance to be published about how to enforce
the legislation.

I would expect it to say something about the driver making reasonable
efforts to stop the passenger smoking. So I wouldn't expect it to be
considered reasonable to punch the passenger, nor would it be expected
to stop the car on a motorway.
--
Chris French

In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 18/10/2015 21:09, Phil L wrote:
"David Lang" wrote in message
...

So what happens if you are giving a lift to a 17 year old smoker?
Presumably he can smoke, but you can't?

Who cares, the police have already stated that they won't be policing it

I suspect the only time a driver will be prosecuted will when there's
an accident and it later transpires there was a child in the car, just
to put the boot in.


Yes, and I suspect we will some cases where people were obviously
smoking where they will get a FPN.

But really, this falls into the area of legislation aimed really to
change behaviour - rather like seatbelt law, or kids car seats - you
don't get many prosecutions for these as most of the time, people comply
anyway
--
Chris French

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If you started with a clean sheet on 'recreational'
drugs, alcohol would be Class A.

Nope.

Try doing some research.

Abuse of it can damage just about every organ in the body.

But normal use is actually good for your body.

That is very debatable. But it certainly ain't essential.

And it costs society billions through abuse.

Just as true of sugar and food. Neither would be Class A for that reason.

Food is essential. Alcohol, not.

Of course many will say it's perfectly safe if used sensibly. As it is.
But then so are many other recreational drugs.

Not very many actually.

Lots are as safe or safer if used sensibly. Of course that may not include
the impure adulterated stuff that's sold on the streets because there are
no controls and it's sold by criminals - but then the same can apply to
bootleg alcohol.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/10/2015 23:48, Chris French wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes
On 18/10/2015 17:25, Chris French wrote:
In message , David Lang
writes
On 18/10/2015 13:51, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/10/2015 13:28, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-10-17, Robin wrote:
charles wrote:
and if I give a lift to someone as part of my charitable work, I
have
to display a NO SMOKING sign in the car.

Have you been told what to do if you are driving on a motorway
with
2 or
more passengers when one of them starts smoking?

They find themselves standing on the hard shoulder.
+1


Standing? Why not knock them out and then leave them lying in the
hard
shoulder?
+1 and bonus points.

Out of interest, who is prosecuted, the driver or the smoker?

I think it's both.


Yup,

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-tobacco-e-cig

arettes-and-smoking-1-october-2015/new-rules-about-tobacco-e-cigarettes-a

nd-smoking-1-october-2015


It says "for a driver (including a provisional driver) not to stop
someone smoking in these circumstances".

I'm not sure what the precise act wording is, but "to stop" someone
smoking is not instantaneous. Its not clear what steps the driver can
take without incurring the wrath of any other law, such as stopping on
a motorway? Or should that be considered an emergency?


The precise wording is:

"if you are the driver, to fail to prevent smoking in a private
vehicle with someone under age 18 present"

The normal approach is for guidance to be published about how to enforce
the legislation.

I would expect it to say something about the driver making reasonable
efforts to stop the passenger smoking. So I wouldn't expect it to be
considered reasonable to punch the passenger, nor would it be expected
to stop the car on a motorway.

"Failing" someone else to "stop smoking" is quite another. It sounds
quite explicit. The guidance on what constitutes this "fail" will be
interesting.

On 18/10/2015 23:52, Chris French wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes
On 18/10/2015 21:09, Phil L wrote:
"David Lang" wrote in message
...

So what happens if you are giving a lift to a 17 year old smoker?
Presumably he can smoke, but you can't?

Who cares, the police have already stated that they won't be policing it

I suspect the only time a driver will be prosecuted will when there's
an accident and it later transpires there was a child in the car, just
to put the boot in.


Yes, and I suspect we will some cases where people were obviously
smoking where they will get a FPN.

But really, this falls into the area of legislation aimed really to
change behaviour - rather like seatbelt law, or kids car seats - you
don't get many prosecutions for these as most of the time, people comply
anyway

The major difference is that they were enforced.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

If you started with a clean sheet on 'recreational'
drugs, alcohol would be Class A.

Nope.

Try doing some research.

Don’t need to. I keep up with the medical science in
this area because I drink it daily. Don’t drink all that
much, normally only 750mls of full strength beer,
what we call a long neck a day, and maybe a
shot of spirits as well, not every day tho.

I've never been stupid enough to smoke regularly,
just the usual teenage few packets, enough to
decide that it was completely pointless.

I don’t even bother with caffeine anymore.

Abuse of it can damage just about every organ in the body.

But normal use is actually good for your body.

That is very debatable.

Yes, but the evidence that its better for you than no
alcohol at all is quite easy to find, proper rigorous
scientific long term studys of the health of those who drink
in moderation and those who don’t and death rates etc.

But it certainly ain't essential.

We weren't discussing what is essential.

And it costs society billions through abuse.

Just as true of sugar and food. Neither would be Class A for that reason.

Food is essential. Alcohol, not.

That isn't what determines whether it is Class A.

Caffeine isn't essential either.

And neither is sugar in the sense that you can add it in powdered form.

Of course many will say it's perfectly safe if used sensibly. As it is.
But then so are many other recreational drugs.

Not very many actually.

Lots are as safe or safer if used sensibly.

That's not what you said.

Of course that may not include the impure adulterated
stuff that's sold on the streets because there are no
controls and it's sold by criminals - but then the
same can apply to bootleg alcohol.

The downside with quite a few of the illegal drugs
even in their high quality form is that with some
of them the difference between the dose that is
commonly used and what can kill you is much
smaller than it is with the legal ones like
nicotine, alcohol and caffeine in spades.

The real reason alcohol isn't Class A is because
almost everyone with even half a clue has noticed
that once it gets as widely used as alcohol and
nicotine and caffeine are, prohibition just doesn’t work.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But normal use is actually good for your body.

That is very debatable.

Yes, but the evidence that its better for you than no
alcohol at all is quite easy to find, proper rigorous
scientific long term studys of the health of those who drink
in moderation and those who don’t and death rates etc.

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health. Not surprising given the way it is
advertised and generally treated in the media. And so relatively cheap.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Of course many will say it's perfectly safe if used sensibly. As it
is. But then so are many other recreational drugs.

Not very many actually.

Lots are as safe or safer if used sensibly.

That's not what you said.

I just said it above.

Of course that may not include the impure adulterated
stuff that's sold on the streets because there are no
controls and it's sold by criminals - but then the
same can apply to bootleg alcohol.

The downside with quite a few of the illegal drugs
even in their high quality form is that with some
of them the difference between the dose that is
commonly used and what can kill you is much
smaller than it is with the legal ones like
nicotine, alcohol and caffeine in spades.

You think an alcohol overdose can't kill you?

I've never heard of anyone dying from a nicotine or caffeine overdose.
Although I'm sure you could find an example to justify your view that
alcohol is not only totally safe but good for you.

The real reason alcohol isn't Class A is because
almost everyone with even half a clue has noticed
that once it gets as widely used as alcohol and
nicotine and caffeine are, prohibition just doesn’t work.

--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

like the 5 fruits a day.

--
Please note new email address:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:41 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've never heard of anyone dying from a ... caffeine overdose.

You kidding me? Caffeine is highly addictive, and certainly can be fatal
in extreme cases.

On 19/10/2015 10:52, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

Tell that to the doctors and nurses in the A&E wards and especially on
friday nights in big towns, many residents have to put up with drunkards
urinating/spewing fighting/ shouting etc.
It ties up the resources of the police and ambulance services.

Arrest drunks who clog up hospital A&E wards, says medical ...
www.theguardian.com ۼ Society ۼ Alcohol
27 Dec 2014 - €œThere's far too much acceptance that this is normal for a
Friday or ... for being a nuisance and for taking up vital A&E resources
as a result of their own ... our police forces and ambulance services
are stretched to the limits and ...

Bod

Chris French wrote:
The precise wording is:

"if you are the driver, to fail to prevent smoking in a private
vehicle with someone under age 18 present"

The normal approach is for guidance to be published about how to
enforce the legislation.

I would expect it to say something about the driver making reasonable
efforts to stop the passenger smoking. So I wouldn't expect it to be
considered reasonable to punch the passenger, nor would it be expected
to stop the car on a motorway.

Spot on - except it's a "statutory defence" in the legislation which
gets you off the hook if you can show you "took reasonable steps to
cause the person in question to stop smoking".

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

Now that's a good way of avoiding the point.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

I wasn't referring to smoking in particular. I'm more than happy for laws
being enforced to stop those smoking effecting non smokers nearby. Now if
only we could have the same laws about alcohol. In many town centres on a
Saturday night.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

It is a perfectly valid comment when related to the costs of alcohol abuse
to the community. After all one of the most frequently used arguments
agaist smoking is how much it costs the NHS in later life.

Pretty well all the arguments - both pro and con - can be used for most
recreational drugs. Which includes alcohol.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:41 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've never heard of anyone dying from a ... caffeine overdose.

You kidding me? Caffeine is highly addictive, and certainly can be fatal
in extreme cases.

Do you know of anyone who's died of a caffeine overdose? Anyone who's died
of a nicotine overdose? Or have read of a case locally?

I'm willing to bet you do know of someone who's died as a result of too
much alcohol in one session, though. Or read about it.

--
*You know you're a redneck if your home has wheels and your car doesn't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2015 10:52, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:45:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The fact remains that a substantial percentage of the population drinks
far more than is good for their health.

More than we're told is good for our health - but the 21/14 unit
recommendation is utterly arbitrary, and in no way standardised
internationally.

It is total double standards encouraging the use of a so potentially
dangerous recreational drug - while demonising all others.

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

Tell that to the doctors and nurses in the A&E wards and especially on
friday nights in big towns, many residents have to put up with drunkards
urinating/spewing fighting/ shouting etc.
It ties up the resources of the police and ambulance services.

Arrest drunks who clog up hospital A&E wards, says medical ...
www.theguardian.com ۼ Society ۼ Alcohol
27 Dec 2014 - €œThere's far too much acceptance that this is normal for a
Friday or ... for being a nuisance and for taking up vital A&E resources
as a result of their own ... our police forces and ambulance services are
stretched to the limits and ...

That isnt the reason smoking is banned in public places.

In article , David Lang
writes
On 18/10/2015 13:51, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/10/2015 13:28, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-10-17, Robin wrote:
charles wrote:
and if I give a lift to someone as part of my charitable work, I have
to display a NO SMOKING sign in the car.

Have you been told what to do if you are driving on a motorway with
2 or
more passengers when one of them starts smoking?

They find themselves standing on the hard shoulder.
+1


Standing? Why not knock them out and then leave them lying in the hard
shoulder?
+1 and bonus points.

Out of interest, who is prosecuted, the driver or the smoker?

I think it's both.


Neither. The police can't be arsed.
--
bert

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You think an alcohol overdose can't kill you?

Never said that. I clearly said that say doubling
your normal dose is very unlikely indeed to
kill you with beer or wine, all you get is a bad
hangover at most. With some of the illegal
drugs it can kill you.

Which of the illegal drugs would kill you if you doubled what was
considered a 'normal' dose for recreational purposes?

Oh - a 'normal' dose of alcohol for a hardened drinker can be many times
that of a moderate one. So there really is no such thing.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.


Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

They have just made smoking too much in some public places illegal and
the stupid smokers keep saying they will ban drinking soon when they
already have banned it decades ago.

The smoking ban generally is observed. Except by drunks, of course. ;-)

In fact its been illegal to be in public if you have already drunk too
much without you continuing to drink.

And is neither observed or enforced.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wasn't referring to smoking in particular. I'm more than happy for
laws being enforced to stop those smoking effecting non smokers
nearby. Now if only we could have the same laws about alcohol. In many
town centres on a Saturday night.

There are plenty of laws that already exist to deal with that problem.
Many town centres have banned drinks on the street, the licensee can be
done for serving a drunk, the drunk can be done for drunk and
disorderly, etc.

And have you ever visited such a town centre recently?

If only smokers could be arrested and locked up in a cell too.

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I'm willing to bet you do know of someone who's died as a result
of too much alcohol in one session, though. Or read about it.

FAR more have died of a heroin overdose.

You know of any personally? Because I'll bet you know of someone who's
died of an alcohol related condition personally. And most likely several.

And FAR fewer use heroin than alcohol.

And have to buy it from criminals on the street so have no idea of its
strength or what rubbish has been added to it.

--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You think an alcohol overdose can't kill you?

Never said that. I clearly said that say doubling your
normal dose is very unlikely indeed to kill you with
beer or wine, all you get is a bad hangover at most.
With some of the illegal drugs it can kill you.

Which of the illegal drugs would kill you if you doubled what
was considered a 'normal' dose for recreational purposes?

It isn't what is considered a normal dose for recreational
purposes, what matters is what THAT PERSON usually has.

That's why heroin users can very easily overdose if they
try to give up and then start using what they had used
previously just before they tried to give up.

You don’t get that effect with alcohol.

Oh - a 'normal' dose of alcohol for a hardened drinker can be
many times that of a moderate one. So there really is no such thing.

I included the word YOUR for a reason.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable
effect on those nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.

Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

It is when that produces the worst behaviour like
smashing things and physically assaulting people
or even so completely blotto that you are completely
legless and are a real danger to yourself because of that.

They have just made smoking too much in some public
places illegal and the stupid smokers keep saying they will ban
drinking soon when they already have banned it decades ago.

The smoking ban generally is observed. Except by drunks, of course. ;-)

Irrelevant to the point he was making there.

In fact its been illegal to be in public if you have already
drunk too much without you continuing to drink.

And is neither observed or enforced.

It is when that produces the worst behaviour like
smashing things and physically assaulting people
or even so completely blotto that you are completely
legless and are a real danger to yourself because of that.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You think an alcohol overdose can't kill you?

Never said that. I clearly said that say doubling your
normal dose is very unlikely indeed to kill you with
beer or wine, all you get is a bad hangover at most.
With some of the illegal drugs it can kill you.

Which of the illegal drugs would kill you if you doubled what
was considered a 'normal' dose for recreational purposes?

It isn't what is considered a normal dose for recreational
purposes, what matters is what THAT PERSON usually has.

Then there is no such thing as a normal dose. The phrase you used.

That's why heroin users can very easily overdose if they
try to give up and then start using what they had used
previously just before they tried to give up.

You don’t get that effect with alcohol.

You most certainly do. The amount of alcohol an alcoholic can consume and
still stand would astound a moderate drinker. If he stopped for some time
and then consumed the same amount it could easily kill him.

Oh - a 'normal' dose of alcohol for a hardened drinker can be
many times that of a moderate one. So there really is no such thing.

I included the word YOUR for a reason.

You mean my normal dose? Since you can have no idea what that is why
mention it?

All you can talk about is your normal dose. Meaningless for others.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

It is when that produces the worst behaviour like
smashing things and physically assaulting people
or even so completely blotto that you are completely
legless and are a real danger to yourself because of that.

By which time it is too late. The idea of such a law is to prevent such
behaviour. Not tidy up the mess afterwards.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 01:20:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
It's not, because alcohol has no direct and inescapable effect on those
nearby, unlike passive smoking.

The whole "Ooh, but what about drink-driving/alcohol-fuelled violence"
argument is just specious idiocy.


Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

I don;t even think that is the case you can drink as much as you like it only becomes a problem should you annoy others.
You would also need to work out exactly how much is too much which is something that can't be calculated.
Whereas if in charge of a motor vehical then there is a certain amount of blood alcohol level which only paritailly depends on how much you've drunk but also your matabolisim and whether you've had anything to eat and how long since you drank.



In fact its been illegal to be in public if you have already drunk too
much without you continuing to drink.

And is neither observed or enforced.

that's because there's no such law in the UK.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

I don;t even think that is the case you can drink as much as you like it
only becomes a problem should you annoy others.

That would be logical. Some drunks are happy drunks - others want to fight
the world.

You would also need to
work out exactly how much is too much which is something that can't be
calculated.

Difficult, since the effect is so different on individuals.

Whereas if in charge of a motor vehical then there is a
certain amount of blood alcohol level which only paritailly depends on
how much you've drunk but also your matabolisim and whether you've had
anything to eat and how long since you drank.

It used to be up to a doctor to decide if you were drunk in charge of a
car. But was changed to a fixed amount for everyone.

Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to alcohol
wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired. A problem drunk
can be many times over the limit allowed for driving.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:10:35 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

I don;t even think that is the case you can drink as much as you like it
only becomes a problem should you annoy others.

That would be logical.

That IS the law.

Some drunks are happy drunks - others want to fight
the world.

So why arrest the happy drunks. It's not yet illegal to be happy or drunk.



You would also need to
work out exactly how much is too much which is something that can't be
calculated.

Difficult, since the effect is so different on individuals.

yes, but still done.
https://www.gov.uk/drink-drive-limit
Not it depends where you are too. BUT this is for driver aonly not passangers or those walking. Thre's is NO level of drunkenness that is against the law.
The closest being is drunk AND disorderly, but you have to be both.



Whereas if in charge of a motor vehical then there is a
certain amount of blood alcohol level which only paritailly depends on
how much you've drunk but also your matabolisim and whether you've had
anything to eat and how long since you drank.

It used to be up to a doctor to decide if you were drunk in charge of a
car. But was changed to a fixed amount for everyone.

Yep, even though everyone is differnt.


Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to alcohol
wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired. A problem drunk
can be many times over the limit allowed for driving.

We're talking about when the law takes action.
When a car I was pulled over in, suspected the driver was drunk which they weren't as she hadn't had anyhting to drink, I was ****eed in the back seat, they never arrested me for being ****ed.

That's one of the big problems in saudai arabia, if you get ****ed you can;t get the misses/female partner to drive you home.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to alcohol
wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired. A problem
drunk can be many times over the limit allowed for driving.

We're talking about when the law takes action. When a car I was pulled
over in, suspected the driver was drunk which they weren't as she hadn't
had anyhting to drink, I was ****eed in the back seat, they never
arrested me for being ****ed.

But you're not in a public place when in the back of a car.

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Its been illegal to drink too much in public for years.

But simply isn't enforced.

I don;t even think that is the case you can drink as much as you like it
only becomes a problem should you annoy others.

That would be logical. Some drunks are happy drunks - others want to fight
the world.

You would also need to
work out exactly how much is too much which is something that can't be
calculated.

Difficult, since the effect is so different on individuals.

Whereas if in charge of a motor vehical then there is a
certain amount of blood alcohol level which only paritailly depends on
how much you've drunk but also your matabolisim and whether you've had
anything to eat and how long since you drank.

It used to be up to a doctor to decide if you were drunk in charge of a
car. But was changed to a fixed amount for everyone.

Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to alcohol
wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired. A problem drunk
can be many times over the limit allowed for driving.

and, note that the legal limit for driving in Scotland is far lower than
that for England & Wales

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to alcohol
wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired. A problem
drunk can be many times over the limit allowed for driving.

We're talking about when the law takes action. When a car I was pulled
over in, suspected the driver was drunk which they weren't as she hadn't
had anyhting to drink, I was ****eed in the back seat, they never
arrested me for being ****ed.

But you're not in a public place when in the back of a car.

you are if the glass in the windows is clear.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Generally, at the legal limit for driving, most people used to
alcohol wouldn't be 'fighting drunk' But their judgment impaired.
A problem drunk can be many times over the limit allowed for
driving.

We're talking about when the law takes action. When a car I was
pulled over in, suspected the driver was drunk which they weren't as
she hadn't had anyhting to drink, I was ****eed in the back seat,
they never arrested me for being ****ed.

But you're not in a public place when in the back of a car.

you are if the glass in the windows is clear.

Right. Does that mean I can open the rear door of any car and have a sit
down if I want? ;-)

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You think an alcohol overdose can't kill you?

Never said that. I clearly said that say doubling your
normal dose is very unlikely indeed to kill you with
beer or wine, all you get is a bad hangover at most.
With some of the illegal drugs it can kill you.

Which of the illegal drugs would kill you if you doubled what
was considered a 'normal' dose for recreational purposes?

It isn't what is considered a normal dose for recreational
purposes, what matters is what THAT PERSON usually has.

Then there is no such thing as a normal dose.

Never said that there was.

The phrase you used.

I actually used the phrase YOUR NORMAL DOSE.

There certainly is for many recreational drug users, legal or illegal.

That's why heroin users can very easily overdose if they
try to give up and then start using what they had used
previously just before they tried to give up.

You don't get that effect with alcohol.

You most certainly do.

Like hell you do.

The amount of alcohol an alcoholic can consume
and still stand would astound a moderate drinker.
If he stopped for some time and then consumed
the same amount it could easily kill him.

In practice it hardly ever does in comparison with heroin.

Oh - a 'normal' dose of alcohol for a hardened drinker can be
many times that of a moderate one. So there really is no such thing.

I included the word YOUR for a reason.

You mean my normal dose?

Nope, the normal dose for the individual who has just killed
themselves using it after not using that drug for a while.

Since you can have no idea what that is

Doesn't matter what it actually is, what matters is that
using it at the dose it was used before not using it for
a while can kill you quite easily with heroin but you
hardly ever see that with alcohol, because it has a
much bigger variation between the lethal dose
and the normal dose FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL.

why mention it?

Presumably you actually are that stupid and that's why you need a union.

All you can talk about is your normal dose.

You are wrong, as always.

Meaningless for others.

You are wrong, as always.

On 20/10/2015 13:41, whisky-dave wrote:

that's because there's no such law in the UK.


You try drinking on the streets around here and you will soon discover
that you are wrong.