Balancing dining out and having drinks?

I read Heather's recent post and thought it was worthy of a discussion. With the limit being lowered from .10 to .08 is it feasible to dine out and have drinks? I don't agree with the lower limit. I think it is reasonable for someone to be able to dine out and have two drinks and feel that they can drive home if they feel comfortable doing so.

On the other hand. If I drive to Cumberland or NABC and have two pints without eating I know I'm probably over the limit. I know I can safely drive home but if I get pulled over I will get a DUI.

How are folks to balance having drinks and driving or not driving these days?

** opens lid** uh, Pandora.... are you still in there?
What have I gone and done?

With the limit being lowered from .10 to .08 is it feasible to dine out and have drinks?

Sure it is feasible. I'm not petite, so 2 or 3 glasses of wine over a 2 hour meal keeps me well under the legal limit. If I'm in the mood to get hammered, which I'm less inclined to do lately, I stay at home or get someone in the group to be the designated driver.
'Winger

This whole DUI thing is O.C. It's getting so a feller can't even go out and swill 8 or 10 beers without fearing a run in with John Law. What's the world coming when a working man can't even stop for a few cold ones and a couple of shots after a hard day. Perhaps someday we'll be fortunate and someone will start an organization called DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers) !!!...THEN maybe we'll be able to interject some common sense into the equation.

The best thing is to eat and to obey the 1:1 ratio. One drink to one glass of water. Not only will this help keeping BAC down, it also helps in hangover avoidance. Certainly an oft-overlooked and helpfull rule (and I'm talking about me, lol!)

Otherwise, a DD is the best catch-all...

[Robin Garr]

I read Heather's recent post and thought it was worthy of a discussion. With the limit being lowered from .10 to .08 is it feasible to dine out and have drinks?

Brian, I inadvertently responded to this issue in response to Heather's post and pretty much took the stand that the .08 limit doesn't really form any threat to the moderate consumption of beverage alcohol with meals, although I'm sure people would differ over what "moderate" means.

As a wine-and-food writer, I've been interested in this topic for a long time, and (as an aside) it's my opinion that the people leading efforts to lower blood-alcohol limits below .10 - some propose even more draconian limits - are not driven by safety but by a blue-nosed desire to make people stop consuming alcohol. It's easy to find records demonstrating that the vast majority of the carnage is done by hard-core drunks with BAC in excess of .15. I am NOT aware of similar records demonstrating any benefit from reducing .10 to .08.

But here's the ground for hope: I've experimented a fair amount with calibrated home breathalyzers at wine-tasting dinners and events involved with my wine forums, and I've discovered that - for me, at least - it takes a LOT of drinking - far more than I would do or have ever done since those tequila experiments back when I was young and stupid - to get anywhere close to .08. You (or me, at least) do not get to .08 by sharing a bottle of wine with your partner over the course of a leisurely dinner. YOU DON'T EVEN GET CLOSE.

So, basically, I think the move to lower BAC limits is wrong-headed, stupid, and driven by hypocritical forces who say they are promoting a policy for one reason while actually pushing another. But on the other hand, no, it doesn't effect me, because my moderate drinking habits aren't going to get me within a quarter-mile of the new limit, much less the old one.

I do recommend individual discretion, but in my opinion, this law, however stupid, does not mean that you have to stop drinking in restaurants if you intend to drive. But caution and good sense are always good ideas, regardless of the law.

[Robin Garr]

The best thing is to eat and to obey the 1:1 ratio. One drink to one glass of water. Not only will this help keeping BAC down, it also helps in hanover avoidance. Certainly an oft-overlooked and helpfull rule (and I'm talking about me, lol!)

This is a very good point for a lot of reasons, Stephen. Thanks for adding it.

Even without it, though, I'll still stand on my original comment: If you're drinking while you eat, and doing so moderately (and that doesn't mean one glass, it means a standard wine bottle shared between two people), you're not going to get close to .08, not unless perhaps you weigh 39 pounds.

, it also helps in hanover avoidance.

I wasn't aware that I was that bad that people had to avoid me

So, basically, I think the move to lower BAC limits is wrong-headed, stupid, and driven by hypocritical forces who say they are promoting a policy for one reason while actually pushing another. But on the other hand, no, it doesn't effect me, because my moderate drinking habits aren't going to get me within a quarter-mile of the new limit, much less the old one.

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."

Having said that, I very much agree with you, Robin, that the push to lower the limit is actually a push for a different agenda. I'm amused by how much time we spend as a society discussing "distracted" driving. I've argued for a long time that there should be a study that attempts to show the levels to which different forms of "distracted" driving actually impairs driving. I think you are correct in arguing that there's a certain line where drinking-and-driving turns into pure stupidity and a very increased likelihood of causing harm. Short of that line, I'm willing to wager a very high amount of money (more than I have) that, in simulated conditions, texting while driving is significantly more dangerous than driving at a .08 BAC.

I read Heather's recent post and thought it was worthy of a discussion. With the limit being lowered from .10 to .08 is it feasible to dine out and have drinks?

So, basically, I think the move to lower BAC limits is wrong-headed, stupid, and driven by hypocritical forces

One word. Lawyers.

Another word: Fundis

This is a true story of how times have changed. When I was 17, my friend and I were driving in my mini to go to a club. She couldn't drive at all, and I hadn't passed my test. In England, you have to have L plates on your car until you pass your test, and you cannot drive without a qualified driver. Well, just outside of town we get pulled over for a broken rear light.

I said "Well, we are on our way to Wades, can we carry on". He said, "Yeah, just get it fixed soon". My friend pointed to the police man in the car. Has making the age old whooooooh sign with his clenched fist bringing it to his body!!

After leaving the club, intoxicated, I may add. My car wouldn't start, so three policemen bump started it for me. Neither the police earlier or the later police asked to see my license and the second lot didn't attempt to ask me if I had been drinking. This was in 1977, and I am damn sure the same wouldn't happen today.

But there is a difference btw having a LIT and a glass of wine. LIT's are huge and loaded with alcohol. I think the only non alcoholic thing in there is a splash of soda, right? So to me, having an LIT is more than having just one drink. I'm smaller, and have a lower tolerance to alochol (woohoo..cheap date!) but I know if I have one glass of wine..or perhaps 2 with a meal I hardly feel it compared to having 1 LIT.

I failed the field sobriety test once with an "alleged" .145 breathalizer test that was never shown to me. Honest to goodness, I felt sober enough and it had been a while since my last sip (I stopped drinking at a party I was at so I wouldn't get in trouble). I would also like to add how quickly I was ushered to the station for testing where I blew .079. Still had to spend the night in jail, go to court and plead guilty for a PI (had a good lawyer, too, pro bono friends' dad), pay $500, and go to alcohol awareness classes. I guess I'm lucky that the field sobriety is technically inadmissable in court, but I WAS driving at the time that I was so called "publically intoxicated". Stupid legal system.

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, but then again, I haven't played with the tests. I should. But for the years since my close encounter, I avoid the formidable consequence every way possible.

I should also add that I wasn't .145 on the field test, no way.Those idiots were lying and hoping that I was lying about whether or not I had recently consumed - that my level would increase by the time we got to the station.

Well, weight obviously makes a huge difference. A 100 pound person will have about twice the alcohol content as a 200 pound person. There are tables that show you how many drinks bring you to what level.

Also, your body breaks down about one drink per hour. Food in your stomach also slows down the absorption of alcohol into your system.

That all said, if you go out to an hour-long meal, I'd say the average person will be totally safe with two typical drinks (again Hoptimus is not the same as Bud Light. Wines are all pretty comparable. Liquor drinks vary wildly). You're probably pushing the limit at three drinks (but three drinks in an hour suggests you're focusing on drinking rather than eating). However a two hundred pound person would be fine at three drinks in an hour, especially with food.

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.

Keep in mind that it won't destroy your life, heck in our last administration, Bush had one DUI and Cheney had two. I bet they did a LOT of drunk driving in their days....but times have changed, penalties and fines are way up, and repeat offenders get the book thrown at them. Better to avoid the first one....

Plus, I'd hate to live the rest of my life if I caused a serious accident and hurt or killed someone due to being drunk. That should be the overwhelming consideration when thinking about the topic, rather than the personal inconvenience a DUI can cause you.

Cheers!

Oh, on another "selfish" note, my guess is that a first time DUI costs you well over a couple thousand bucks. $500 for a lawyer. $500 in fines/court costs. And probably at least a $1000 for higher insurance rates for the next few years. For $2000, you can get an awful lot of cab rides.