"Tom Kohlman" wrote in message
et...
...you missed the "moderation" part...applies to everything in life
(including moderation). Sorry to hear about your brother-in-law.

"Eric Lund" wrote in message
. com...

...somehow I suspect that not everybody is being honest here...

Unfortunately, you are likely correct.

...IMHO beer in moderation is harmless and actually improves the
thought
process

My Brother-In-Law believes this as well. He has to. He's an alcoholic,
and
he couldn't justify his drinking if he didn't.

Cheers,
Eric






I understand what you are saying. He BELIEVES he is drinking in moderation.
He'll even tell you how few beers he's had. But I'll tell you this, I don't
have three garbage cans full of nothing but empty beer cans at my house.
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that if you feel justified drinking
around machinery that is known to have dangerous properties, then I have to
suspect a lack of basic restraint. I drink water in the shop, and the water
doesn't get near the tools. If I need water, I need a break, so I take a
break. I don't often drink alcohol of any sort, but if I do, it's not in my
shop.

Cheers,
Eric

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
In rec.woodworking
(Doug Miller) wrote:

As I pointed out before, "legal to drive" is not the same thing as "safe
to
drive". It is indeed quite possible to be too drunk to drive safely,
while
still under the legal limit. For example, a person with a BAC of 0.079 is
still "legal to drive" but he sure as hell isn't safe. Is that so hard
for you
to get?

On what science do you base a decision that is contrary to the law?
Especially a law that has been changed in the past decade from .1 to .08?
How does Miller Almighty know better than the law?


Actually, the .08 limit is only one test for impairment. If you are seen
driving erratically, fail a field sobriety test and damage or injure
another, you are just as likely to be convicted of a DUI as someone who
merely tests over the .08 limit. In my youth, I pushed the limit at times,
perhaps even exceeded it a few times. Fortunately, nothing bad happened,
and I got smarter with age.

Good Luck (If you drink and drive, you'll need it).

Cheers,
Eric

In article , "Eric Lund" wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
In rec.woodworking
(Doug Miller) wrote:

As I pointed out before, "legal to drive" is not the same thing as "safe
to
drive". It is indeed quite possible to be too drunk to drive safely,
while
still under the legal limit. For example, a person with a BAC of 0.079 is
still "legal to drive" but he sure as hell isn't safe. Is that so hard
for you
to get?

On what science do you base a decision that is contrary to the law?
Especially a law that has been changed in the past decade from .1 to .08?
How does Miller Almighty know better than the law?


Actually, the .08 limit is only one test for impairment. If you are seen
driving erratically, fail a field sobriety test and damage or injure
another, you are just as likely to be convicted of a DUI as someone who
merely tests over the .08 limit. In my youth, I pushed the limit at times,
perhaps even exceeded it a few times. Fortunately, nothing bad happened,
and I got smarter with age.

Yes, the point that is often missed is that the 0.08 limit is not a threshold
separating "drunk" from "not drunk", it's a prosecutorial tool separating
"oipen and shut case" from "more difficult to prosecute". When a driver's BAC
measures 0.08 or higher, that is by law prima facie *proof* of driving while
intoxicated, and no other evidence needs to be introduced in court to obtain a
conviction for DWI. Drivers can be convicted of DWI at lower BAC, but other
evidence of impairment must be presented, such as erratic driving, or failing
a field sobriety test (as you mentioned).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

Doug Miller wrote:



"...0.08 or higher, that is by law prima facie *proof* of driving while
intoxicated..."

Sorry to have to correct you, Doug, but in the states where .08 (or some other
number) have been enacted, that number is prima facie "evidence" of
"impairment" not "proof as you say. Prima facie evidence means, that unless
there is evidence to the contrary, the .08 creates a rebuttable presumption of
guilt. It does not preclude the introduction of other evidence of sobriety.
Otherwise, one charged with DWI with a .08 or higher, would never elect to
defend the charges and would certainly never be found "not guilty". Some of
those cases ARE tried, and some ARE found not guilty.

Jay in NH
(former DWI defense counse!)

Eric Lund wrote:
"Tom Kohlman" wrote in message
et...

...you missed the "moderation" part...applies to everything in life
(including moderation). Sorry to hear about your brother-in-law.

"Eric Lund" wrote in message
y.com...

...somehow I suspect that not everybody is being honest here...

Unfortunately, you are likely correct.

...IMHO beer in moderation is harmless and actually improves the

thought

process

My Brother-In-Law believes this as well. He has to. He's an alcoholic,

and

he couldn't justify his drinking if he didn't.

Cheers,
Eric






I understand what you are saying. He BELIEVES he is drinking in moderation.
He'll even tell you how few beers he's had. But I'll tell you this, I don't
have three garbage cans full of nothing but empty beer cans at my house.
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that if you feel justified drinking
around machinery that is known to have dangerous properties, then I have to
suspect a lack of basic restraint.

Or a more realistic understanding of the dangers involved (see my other
reply that begins "Oh, nonsense."

I drink water in the shop, and the water
doesn't get near the tools. If I need water, I need a break, so I take a
break.

Demonstrating what? You're afraid of a little water getting on your
tools? Seems a little over-zealous to me.

I don't often drink alcohol of any sort, but if I do, it's not in my
shop.

Cheers,
Eric
--
to contact, email: gee cee ell eight ay AT virginia.edu

Thanks for the correction.

My point remains, though: 0.08 is a line separating "easy to prosecute for
DWI" from "not so easy to prosecute", not a line separating "drunk" from
"sober" as many people seem to think it is.


In article , (S
S Law NH) wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:



"...0.08 or higher, that is by law prima facie *proof* of driving while
intoxicated..."

Sorry to have to correct you, Doug, but in the states where .08 (or some other
number) have been enacted, that number is prima facie "evidence" of
"impairment" not "proof as you say. Prima facie evidence means, that unless
there is evidence to the contrary, the .08 creates a rebuttable presumption of
guilt. It does not preclude the introduction of other evidence of sobriety.
Otherwise, one charged with DWI with a .08 or higher, would never elect to
defend the charges and would certainly never be found "not guilty". Some of
those cases ARE tried, and some ARE found not guilty.

Jay in NH
(former DWI defense counse!)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW