Balancing dining out and having drinks?

[Robin Garr]

This is one of those issues where, if you take a stand against how the issue is established in law (and not the issue itself), you are, nonetheless, going to come up against someone, for whatever personal reasons, misrepresents your argument as "supporting drunk driving."

If it is to be so, then so be it, Matthew. Misrepresentation may irritate me, but it can't really hurt me.

[Robin Garr]

I don't tempt fait AT ALL anymore. And Robin, I'm not 37 lbs, but I don't think it takes half as much for me as it does for you to reach the illegal level

Sounds like you're basing your attitude on personal experience, Jackie, and that's wise.

Certainly it's true that weight makes a difference. I've also read that (in general), women don't metabolize alcohol in quite the same way as men and thus have a somewhat lower tolerance pound for pound. (My heart goes out to you ... )

I'm not exactly a giant, though - a lot of food critics balloon up on the job, and I took a shot at that myself when I was new in the business. But I soon learned that you can't just eat whatever you please and stay on this job long term, so with the help of portion control and lots of walking, I keep my clothing purchases in the "normal" sizes.

If you're out for an evening of drinking, or even 4+ drinks, you really should have a DD. It isn't worth the time and the money and the inconvenience of a DUI.

In comparing dinner drinks and "an evening of drinking," one of the major things to keep in mind is the time it takes alcohol to be absorbed into the bloodstream. I'd say one of the reasons Robin has recorded such low-readings after dinner drinks is because the alcohol is not in the bloodstream yet. I wonder what the reading would be, say, an hour after getting home? My hypothesis is that one can drink enough alcohol at dinner to be legally drunk (at some future point in time) but make it home before that time arrives. That's clearly not the case when we are talking about "an evening of drinking." You really have to stop before you think you "feel" you are anywhere near the limit, because I'm thinking that BAC level is only going to go up for the next few hours...

Sounds really stupid, (and a person should really, really be taking a cab/City Scoot in this situation), but if you think you are close to the legal limit, get in your car and get your ass home. The "waiting at the bar" would have to be a pretty substantial time, I would think. But, hey, this is all way out of my realm of knowledge...

[Robin Garr]

Here's a longish but useful overview of physical blood-alcohol issues. See link for a longer presentation:
http://chavesdwiprogram.us/pdf/Effects% ... cation.pdf

Factors that will affect the BAC in a person:
•
How much alcohol you drink.
•
How fast you drink. The quicker you drink, the higher your peak BAC will be. The liver
gets rid of alcohol at the average rate of one drink per hour (12 oz. beer, 5 oz. wine, 1
shot of distilled liquor). If a person drinks faster than this, the remainder will circulate in
the blood stream until the liver can get rid of it.
•
Body weight. Heavier people will be less affected by the same amount of alcohol than
lighter people. They have more blood and water in their bodies in which to dilute the
alcohol.
•
Food in the stomach. When there is food in the stomach, alcohol is absorbed slower into
the blood stream. The BAC rises more rapidly in those who drink on an empty stomach,
because there is no food to slow the speed the alcohol is absorbed into the blood.
•
The type of alcohol you drink. The stronger a drink is (the higher the alcohol
concentration, distilled alcohol first, wine second, beer third) the more quickly it is
absorbed. This partially explains why hard liquor has more of an apparent “kick” than
wine or beer.
•
Type of mixer used. Water and fruit juices mixed with alcohol slow the absorption
process, while carbonated beverages will speed it up. Carbon dioxide speeds the alcohol
through the stomach and intestine into the bloodstream, creating a rapid rise in BAC.
•
Temperature of the drink. Warm alcohol is absorbed quicker than cold alcohol.
•
If you are male or female. Women reach higher BAC’s faster because they have less
water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by
alcohol. Therefore, a man and woman, with all other factors being equal, both drinking
the same amount of alcohol will have different BAC levels. Hers will be higher. A
woman’s menstrual cycle will also affect her rate of absorption. They will experience their
highest BAC’s pre-menstrually. In addition, there is also evidence that a woman taking
birth control pills, will absorb alcohol faster, resulting in higher BAC levels.

If you're out for an evening of drinking, or even 4+ drinks, you really should have a DD. It isn't worth the time and the money and the inconvenience of a DUI.

In comparing dinner drinks and "an evening of drinking," one of the major things to keep in mind is the time it takes alcohol to be absorbed into the bloodstream. I'd say one of the reasons Robin has recorded such low-readings after dinner drinks is because the alcohol is not in the bloodstream yet. I wonder what the reading would be, say, an hour after getting home? My hypothesis is that one can drink enough alcohol at dinner to be legally drunk (at some future point in time) but make it home before that time arrives. That's clearly not the case when we are talking about "an evening of drinking." You really have to stop before you think you "feel" you are anywhere near the limit, because I'm thinking that BAC level is only going to go up for the next few hours...

Sounds really stupid, (and a person should really, really be taking a cab/City Scoot in this situation), but if you think you are close to the legal limit, get in your car and get your ass home. The "waiting at the bar" would have to be a pretty substantial time, I would think. But, hey, this is all way out of my realm of knowledge...

I agree 100%. I just want to clarify that I was trying to avoid superfluous details in my account of personal experience, but the fact is, I waited 3 hours (I was drinking an uncertain amount to drain a leftover wedding keg and had little to eat, so the 3 hrs - seriously, yes, 3 hours, was in good measure) before getting behind the wheel. And I was extrememly awkward with the cops so I think they thought I was lying when I was actually telling the exact truth (thus hoping I had just imbibed and would blow a % resonant with the artificial reading they just gave me). As an aside, I have 2 certifications in alcohol training from restaurant positions, possibly contributing to my position of disdain. And thanks, Robin, for your sympathy. It seems to be true about females. Just as unfair as the court system.

Here's a handy wallet size BA chart divide by gender.

Here's a longish but useful overview of physical blood-alcohol issues. See link for a longer presentation:
http://chavesdwiprogram.us/pdf/Effects% ... cation.pdf

Factors that will affect the BAC in a person:
•
How much alcohol you drink.
•
How fast you drink. The quicker you drink, the higher your peak BAC will be. The liver
gets rid of alcohol at the average rate of one drink per hour (12 oz. beer, 5 oz. wine, 1
shot of distilled liquor). If a person drinks faster than this, the remainder will circulate in
the blood stream until the liver can get rid of it.
•
Body weight. Heavier people will be less affected by the same amount of alcohol than
lighter people. They have more blood and water in their bodies in which to dilute the
alcohol.
•
Food in the stomach. When there is food in the stomach, alcohol is absorbed slower into
the blood stream. The BAC rises more rapidly in those who drink on an empty stomach,
because there is no food to slow the speed the alcohol is absorbed into the blood.
•
The type of alcohol you drink. The stronger a drink is (the higher the alcohol
concentration, distilled alcohol first, wine second, beer third) the more quickly it is
absorbed. This partially explains why hard liquor has more of an apparent “kick” than
wine or beer.
•
Type of mixer used. Water and fruit juices mixed with alcohol slow the absorption
process, while carbonated beverages will speed it up. Carbon dioxide speeds the alcohol
through the stomach and intestine into the bloodstream, creating a rapid rise in BAC.
•
Temperature of the drink. Warm alcohol is absorbed quicker than cold alcohol.
•
If you are male or female. Women reach higher BAC’s faster because they have less
water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by
alcohol. Therefore, a man and woman, with all other factors being equal, both drinking
the same amount of alcohol will have different BAC levels. Hers will be higher. A
woman’s menstrual cycle will also affect her rate of absorption. They will experience their
highest BAC’s pre-menstrually. In addition, there is also evidence that a woman taking
birth control pills, will absorb alcohol faster, resulting in higher BAC levels.

This is great info and I agree wholeheartedly. Please remember that BAC level numbers are not absolute in terms of 'at what point is a person impaired?'. Alcohol will react differently with each individual's brain functions regardless of their size, weight and stomach contents. Some people get goofy at the smell of a cork and needn't be behind a wheel.

Without question, there is a libertarian, free-will based argument that can be made against requiring people to wear seatbelts. One can even argue that in a very, very small percentage of cases, seatbelts actually do more harm than good. But from a practical, highest percentage, “cost” versus benefit perspective, no reasonable person can argue against seatbelts and, therefore, mandatory seatbelt laws. {Don’t get me started on helmets and organ donors . . errr … I mean, . . . motorcyclists}

In the same vein, I will never argue against more restrictive alcohol/driving laws, just as I won’t argue against more restrictive texting/driving laws or cell phone/driving laws or even eating-in-the-car/driving laws. I’ve seen more than my share of the horrible consequences of impaired/distracted driving. It only takes one little slip, at the wrong time, and people’s lives are changed forever. And never for the better.

Do I dislike having these freedoms taken from me? Absolutely.

But do I like maybe improving my chances of avoiding auto accidents more than I regret the loss of my personal right to drink and drive, or text and drive, etc.? Yes, even more so.

It seems that many of us are looking at this issue from the perspective of what “I can or can’t do.” I prefer to look at it as what all the other drivers on the road can or can’t do. I will gladly trade my right to drive after drinking moderately for the increased possibility that other drivers will be similarly restricted. Whether I may be able to drive alertly at a .05 or .06 or .07 BAC is not as important to me as the chance that others on the road might be dissuaded from driving with .05, .06, .07, or higher.

I agree with Robin, (or whoever it was) who contends that most of the alcohol-related tragedies result from drivers who are far more impaired than a .08. And I don’t think more restrictive drinking laws impact those who choose to ignore the drinking laws, anyway. Even so, many people do follow laws and the fewer drinking people there are on the road, and the lower their BA levels as a result of stricter limits or whatever reason, the better I like it. If even 50% of the populace reduces their alcohol consumption as a result of stricter laws, that’s a big reduction and a big improvement in my odds of being hit by one of them.

It is more important to me that you don’t drink and drive than it is that I be allowed to drink and drive. I guess I’m saying that more than I mind being restricted, I like the fact that others are being restricted. That’s because I trust me to stay within the restrictions. Everybody else – not so much.

[Step aside; watch out; old man now dismounting from soapbox. Move along – nothing to see here]

I think that's a long, complicated and hard to read way to say that laws in general are for the greater good of society. The discussion is about being able to drive, dine out and have drinks within the law, not trying to get away with skirting the law.

I think that's a long, complicated and hard to read way to say that laws in general are for the greater good of society. The discussion is about being able to drive, dine out and have drinks within the law, not trying to get away with skirting the law.

Brian,

Well, part of the discussion thus far has involved the validity of the laws. Some people think the new 0.08 is too low, for example. Jeffrey was just explaining his personal reasoning for supporting tougher laws. I agree overall.

When I was in grad school in Indiana (Purdue) in the nineties, they had a law that I liked. It was an open container law, that said it is ok to have an open container as long as you're not drunk. It made sense to me. Say you get off work after a long day and you want to crack a beer during your fifteen minute ride home. Should that really be illegal? In Indiana, it was totally legal. Made sense. I think they've changed that law now.

If I'm driving drunk I think I should be pulled over and have the book thrown at me. Hopefully, it would stop me from doing it again. I think that is the point of tough laws. We're balancing rights. One person's right to drink freely, and the other person's right to live without being hit by a drunk driver. The right to live wins.

Semi-related to this thread...

When I was 15 or 16 ( ) we used to go to a bar called "Turn's Inn"...a little beer joint owned by this little grandmotherly lady named K.C. Turn. Johnny Law used to patrol every other bar in town except this one and as a result it was constantly packed with under age kids enjoying a few beers. K.C. would serve damn near anyone as long as you acted like an adult...that is to say no hell raising, drink in moderation and certainly no getting "falling down drunk". If she thought you were too loaded to drive, well by God you didn't drive and if you did drive after she'd told you not to she would make sure you never darkened that doorway again.

Years...OK, decades later...there is no doubt in my mind that she had some kind of a "wink and a nod" thing going with the cops...and it went like this: "OK, so we know these kids are going to go out drinking and there is not a damn thing we can do to stop them. So rather than having them cruise around in their cars drinking and smoking dope all night we'll (literally) look the other way and let them drink at Turn's Inn (and only Turn's Inn) because we know that K.C. isn't going to let them get out of control".

Obviously there is no way this kind of thing could (or should) take place in today's world but back in the 70's in our little town it was a pretty effective way to keep the kids under at least a little bit of control.

Obviously there is no way this kind of thing could (or should) take place in today's world but back in the 70's in our little town it was a pretty effective way to keep the kids under at least a little bit of control.

Similarly, when I was in high school (late 90s), I had a buddy whose parents let us drink in the basement. Once we had the first, our keys were taken and not returned until morning.

Their logic was this - we were going to drink regardless, so better for them to give us a safe, comfortable place to do it, make sure we didn't over do it, make sure we didn't drive, and make sure we didn't get arrested trying to buy it with fake IDs and the like.

It was a huge risk on their part, to be sure, but it taught us some semblance of responsibility with alcohol and also kept us safe.

Can anyone say Bauers or the Pine Room?

Can anyone say Bauers or the Pine Room?

Hikes Point Lounge maybe..??

Can anyone say Bauers or the Pine Room?

Hikes Point Lounge maybe..??

I celebrated a New Year's Eve right around the millennium there. I was born in 1982. That's all I am saying.

I've never been back, now that I think about it. I just needed "time" to "discover" other options, I guess.

Obviously there is no way this kind of thing could (or should) take place in today's world but back in the 70's in our little town it was a pretty effective way to keep the kids under at least a little bit of control.

Similarly, when I was in high school (late 90s), I had a buddy whose parents let us drink in the basement. Once we had the first, our keys were taken and not returned until morning.

Their logic was this - we were going to drink regardless, so better for them to give us a safe, comfortable place to do it, make sure we didn't over do it, make sure we didn't drive, and make sure we didn't get arrested trying to buy it with fake IDs and the like.

It was a huge risk on their part, to be sure, but it taught us some semblance of responsibility with alcohol and also kept us safe.

I knew a guy in college who pulled the "DUI the morning after" when he was underage. Not really all that hard to do if you are underage and partake in a long night of drinking given that blowing anything is illegal. With such "zero tolerance" I would not want to be those parents these days....