Re: beer in the shop?

[Eric Lund]

...you missed the "moderation" part...applies to everything in life

> (including moderation). Sorry to hear about your brother-in-law. > > > > ...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

[Eric Lund]

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

[Doug Miller]

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

[S S Law NH]

"...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!)

[Greg Lewin]

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

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

[Doug Miller]

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.

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

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW