BD: "Antiseptic...there are a few intellectual 'germs' in that noggin of yours which may require autoclave treatment."

Praise indeed!

BD: "drugs or alchohol BOTH tend to contribute to violent behavior."

And driving tends to contribute to road accidents, eating tends to contribute to obesity, going to church tends to contribute to Wowserism. thank you for your entry in this month's "bleedin' obvious" award.

Personally, I've been assaulted twice in my adult life. Once was by a work colleague while I was working in the mining industry, the other was by my partner at the time. Neither was drunk, stoned or in any way intoxicated. On the other hand, I've been affronted by the sight of religious types assaulting their children by dragging them around the suburbs proselytising countless times. I've been personally accosted and had my business disrupted innumerable times by those and similar door-knocking proselytes. Ban 'em all, I say. After all, I don't do that sort of thing...

Hi StG,
I mostly agree with RObert’s and Antiseptic’s posts and I’ve said something similar on the “Legal control of illicit drugs” thread.
Bad and irresponsible behaviour should be punished whether a person is drunk or sober- not for just being drunk.
I don’t mind heavier punishments for violent behaviour.

However, you do make a good point when you say, “Everyone has different tolerance levels and not everyone has drunk drove. But still, it's illegal for everyone to do it.”
The problem is that people just can’t judge their own driving performance when they’re affected by alcohol. So, to avoid people on the road who “think” they can drive safely while in reality their reflexes have slowed down, there simply needs to be a safe cut-off line. Conforming to the under .05 legal blood alcohol level is a very reasonable safety measure.
People are also not affected by the same level of alcohol the exact same way every time, e.g. it can depend on what or how much you ate before or even on the weather.

BD, I enjoyed the story about your martial arts friend :)

To me it seems the aim of some in society is to eliminate all risk. People used to accept risk as part of life, but now they want 'The Government' to 'do something' to stop anyone doing anything that has a risk attached or that they find personally annoying.

I fear for the children;-)

Some rock star (possibly Johnny Rotton from the Sex Pistols) once said "We (the working class) never accept responsibility for our own lives and that is why we'll always be down trodden."

StG: "The courts are FULL of first time offenders."

And the courts would be overflowing with drunk, spaced-out people who haven't hurt anyone, except maybe themselves.

I'm thinking about my misspent youth and young adulthood - if you had your way I'd have a criminal record for not hurting anyone.

For the record, I don't do anything now (chronic illness) and I REALLY MISS IT - I had fun and I'm glad I did.

No-one harmed and no regrets.

Lots of great times.

I think there are a lot more important issues, than whether someone had a toke on a spliff or a brew or two or three.

StG - I can appreciate that you might be a little jaded in your occupation. But draconian measures to further inhibit our choices and behaviours by government edict are, I consider, unnecessary. Indeed the creeping tide of restrictions in our daily lives is believed by many to be a root cause of frustration and violence.

If people weren't allowed to leave the house unless sober I would have missed out on the delightful sight of an elderly and very proper Aunt with two sherries under her belt on Xmas morning mincing across a snowbound round in high heels and a paper Xmas cracker hat to wish the neighbours merry - and subsiding gracefully into a snow drift with a Queenly wave. Or a dear friend at a deserted beach rinsing off the sand with her costume rolled down to her hips being sprung by a group of tourists. Or many other little incidents that caused us all occasions for mirth rather than sadness.

I don't advocate drunkeness - either in public or private. But neither do I advocate any more of the restrictions that are gradually eroding our lives - especially those that deprive us of harmless fun.

StG agreed that people have different tollerance levels. .05's not an ideal solution, it's a compromise because we don't have viable means of determining just how impared someone is. The difference between drink driving and drink socialising is that pretty much every bodies driving is significantly impared when they are drunk, only some peoples behaviour turn aggressive and or violent when drunk.

I found an interesting paper on research into young womens drinking paterns (and issues around male violence). I've not read it all but what I've read so far seems quite relevant.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/35/paper2.pdf

R0bert