Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Thanks for sharing that, Kris.  Congratulations on your courage
    to change and grow.  May I offer one suggestion which I've found
    helps me?  I, too, decided to accept the responsibility for myself
    and have found that it's a long and sometimes difficult journey,
    one upon which I sometimes stumble.  One of the things I've had
    to learn is to forgive myself from time to time for not "getting
    it perfect the first time".  Learning to forgive myself when I
    stumble has been immensely helpful in helping me to get back up
    and try to learn a new lesson and go on.  May your journey be full
    of reward.
    
    Steve

    Although I stumble also...I find it so much easier to 'blame' myself
    because I have the power to take corrective action. 
    
    It was a tough lesson to learn that I couldn't 'make' people behave the
    way I felt they should.
    
    J

    Sorta' reminds me of when I'd have temper tantrums and would take out
    my aggressions on a toy or some other cherished thing.  When I was done
    I'd find it irreparably destroyed.  Imagine the shock and amazement
    when I realized that *I* was responsible for that destruction.  
    
    Saved a lot of wear and tear on future toys and taught myself a 
    valuable lesson.  Nobody could make me do that but *me*.
    
    Carol
    

    In the event of an unfortunate occurrence, you may be co-responsible
    along with many other factors or people. This is more often the case
    than not.
    
    By focusing on what you could have done differently, you open 
    the path to learn and to reduce future misfortune - even in 
    cases where you were only, say, 1% responsible, if indeed
    responsibility can be quantified, as litigants frequently 
    attempt to do in personal injury lawsuits.
    
    So my question to all is this: Can you explain why you find it 
    painful or unpleasant to accept responsibility for misfortune
    or failure ? That is NOT the same as admitting or advertizing it to 
    the rest of the world, for which there might indeed be some 
    penalty.
    
    
    

The difficulty with accepting responsibility rests on a grossly 
over-simplified assumption in our culture. If I do something deliberately
and successfully, I should be congratulated for the actions which I am
happy to be responsible for. If however, things turn out badly, or more
importantly, cause me distress, I look for causes outside of myself which 
will make my actions not my fault. If I do something bad or distrssing, the
alternative to its being caused by something out of my control is for it
to be seen as being precisely my _fault_.

David.

    Interestingly enough, my father and I were talking about this just
    last weekend.  He was reading me excerpts from a book (I think it
    was Wayne Dyer's "Your Erroneous Zones").  He called people who
    put the blame on others "externalizers", and those who took it upon
    themselves "internalizers".  The population runs about 80/20 (or
    something like that - I can't remember precisely).  
    
    Internalizing (which I do) is also bad, because you not only blame
    yourself for things you were responsible for, you also start
    apologizing and blaming yourself for things you *weren't* responsible
    for!
    
    -Jody
    

    re .6, Jody-
    
    > The population runs about 80/20 (or something like that - I can't 
    > remember precisely).
    
    That sounds like nobody gets it right...surely Mr Dyer had more
    to say on that?  Owning one's own responsibilities is one thing,
    and taking on more than one's share is another...surely a happy
    balance is possible.
    
    DougO                        

        I get the feeling that Mr. Dyer was classifying people as
    externalizers if that is what they do MOST of the time.  I'm sure
    he did not mean that everyone was wholly an externalizer or
    internalizer.
    
                                      Greg

    I don't agree with that at all.  I'm rarely, if ever, either an
    internalizer or an externalizer.  At least, based upon the limited
    descriptions given.  It seems as if these are extremes on a Kinsey-like
    scale.  Except here being at one of the extremes might be seen as
    unhealthy.
    
    Dealing with reality makes life a whole lot more fun.

I've come to beleive all blame is a waste.

- We can't change the past.  It's far more productive to focus on
  what is the reality, and how to respond.

- Anytime you blame somebody else, you give them power over you.
  You in effect say, I can't do X until they do Y, or I have to
  X because they Y.  Having enemies is the extreme case of this,
  you literally allow someone else to control you.  ("Loving your
  enemies" is not just a nice thing to do, it gives you the power
  to change the situation! - Friends change friends more than
  enemies change enemies.)

Peter

    I did some more thinking about this topic over the weekend and I
    began to wonder at the root of out inability to accept responsibility
    for our own shortcomings.
    
    Our society considers failure to be a wicked curse.  One of the
    worst things a person can be labelled is a "Loser".  Forget that
    the person had the guts to try.  Forget that no person on this planet
    is perfect.  If you try and triumph you bathe in glory.  If you
    try and fail you bathe in donkey-do.
    
    Is it any wonder that we seek to share the blame?
    
    Kris

    I can hear the "winners" "losers" game going on in me a lot.  My
    problem is that each failure in my life is not seen as an opportunity
    to grow.  As my own worst critic, I tend to see everything in polarized
    black-and-white terms - and thus a single failure makes me feel like a
    total failure sometimes.  
    
    -Jody

    In the beginning, Rick & I fed on each other's weirdness around blame.
    
    Nothing is Rick's fault. Just ask him.  We live in an imperfect world
    where things happen.
    
    On the other hand, while I was not born until 1955, I still feel
    responsible for Hitler's invasion of Poland [slight hyberbole here, but
    not much.]
    
    While this would seem like a good fit, it led to resentment and
    feelings of insignificance on his part and intense self-loathing on
    mine.
    
    The floodgates opened the day I could not find my good sewing scissors
    and was convinced that the reason I could not was that I didn't
    _really_ want to sew hence proving that I was useless, lazy, and
    generally a wart on the bum of humanity. [no lie]  Rick found me in
    tears and when he found out what the problem was, he explained that
    he'd been using them to cut poultry-mesh for the compost enclosure and
    that they'd been ruined -- how was _he_ to know that they wouldn't hold
    up?  I glared at him in teary-eyed rage and he at me in wounded
    innocence.
    
    After a couple of beats, we both began laughing uncontrollably.
    
    In the years since, we have applied the "scissors test" to our
    knee-jerk reactions.  He to assess the impact of his actions on
    probable outcome.  I to assess whether an event is, or even _should_
    be, within my control.
    
    Blame and fault are concepts we try to avoid. In avoiding them we avoid
    Rick's need to defend himself and I avoid the need to punish myself.
    
    On balance, the need to assign/avoid blame takes up valuable time and
    energy [psychic and physical] that could be used toward solutions or
    just doing smething.
    
      Ann

    It seems somewhat obvious that more people are trying to put blame
    on others rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
    This is evident is the courts.  There are so many suite-happy people
    in today's society it is a wonder that anyone blames themselves
    for anything !  Granted, there are many suites on file today that
    are legitimate, but for every legitimate suite, there are probabaly
    10 that will be laughed out of court.
    
    People should learn to be responsible and take responsibility for
    their own actions.  Sometimes it is a hard lesson, but it is worth
    the effort.
    
    Ellen

    Is it just me or does the term "take responsibility for your actions"
    have a really negative connotation?  Kinda like "you wet your bed, now
    sleep in it."  I always equate it to saying "you screwed up, now its time
    to be punished for your actions."  Hardly a positive thing if you're
    trying to show people that messing up is a part of growing up and
    *not* a bad thing.  Resigning yourself simply because you lost a battle
    is, IMO, a bad thing.

    	Jim, I like what you wrote.  Personally, I don't think it should 
    	suggest "you wet your bed, now sleep in it."  But I do think of 
    	it as "you wet your bed and if you want clean dry sheets it's up 
    	to you to change them."
    
    							   Carla
    

 I am a strong believer in personal responsibility. This makes alot of people
very uneasy because it implies causality and even possible culpability.
Very few people are willing to admit mistakes. It's much easier to pretend
that you had nothing to do with it.

 I look at personal responsibility as a powerful force. When you finally
buckle down and admit that you are responsible for your actions, you empower
yourself. You assert "I have the power of causality." What this means is that
you have the ability to affect your environment. You are capable of making
a difference. When you do something, it has impact.

 Frequently, we see people who are selective in their acceptance of personal
responsibility. They are perfectly content to accept responsibility (and
credit/accolades) for the things that they are proud of, but unwilling to
accept responsibility for their mistakes. While they are willing to contend
that they were the major force behind a positive venture (and as such deserve
the lion's share of the credit) they are reticent to accept their role in
a failed venture, instead claiming that their fault was minimal while
circumstances and othe people are to blame. This tendency eliminates alot of the
learning potential because it does not acknowledge the role one had in making
the mistake. How can we learn from something when we didn't do anything wrong?

 Unfortunately, this apparent disinclination to accept responsibility
for one's actions has begun to impact political decisions. These decisions
affect you and I and the safety of our families. It is very popular to
accept the premise that we are all just dust blown by the wind, and are
inherently unable to control ourselves. This philosophy gives rise to the
concepts of society imposing artificial limits on personal freedom (since
we won't hold people accountable). So instead of making laws that hold
people accountable, we make laws to prevent people from experiencing things.
I call these "mommy laws." Take gambling, for instance. Instead of simply
saying "If you run up debts while gambling, you'll have to pay them," we say
"You can't gamble." Instead of saying "If you shoot someone, you will be shot,"
we say "You can't have a gun." In short, we take "preventative measures"
which have the unfortunate byproduct of preventing responsible citizens from
doing things which cause no harm to anyone. These mommy laws are designed to
prevent us from hurting ourselves. "Don't do drugs." What difference does it
make to society if I torch up a reefer on Friday night in my living room?
Is it really any different than socially sanctioned drugs like alcohol? Of
course not.

 People seem all too willing to place the blame for unfortunate events on
inanimate objects, othe people, and society in general. In doing this, they
remove their ability to be responsible for the good things that they do as
well. How can you say "I am responsible for helping rape victims and
deserve credit," when you also say "I am not responsible for running that
kid over cuz I was drunk?" To get the credit for the good things, you must 
accept responsibility for the bad things as well. To do other wise is logically
inconsistent.

 The Doctah

>>> To do other wise is logically
inconsistent.

>>The Doctah 
                                                                       
    Who ever said that human beings were logically consistent? We see
    direct evidence to the contrary every day. This note is really about
    people who accept either too little, or too much responsibility,
    in relationship to others around them. M. Scott Peck, in "The Road
    Less Travelled" discussed these personality types as neurotics (those
    who accept too much) or as character disorders( those who accept
    too little). I think it is up to all of us to examine the amount
    of responsiblity we feel, and see if it is appropriate to the
    situation. It is a skill that doesn't always come naturally.
    
    -roger
    
    
               
    

re .18

I agree completely with your belief in personal responsibility, but I disagree
with your analysis of "mommy laws".

>                                       This philosophy gives rise to the
> concepts of society imposing artificial limits on personal freedom (since
> we won't hold people accountable). So instead of making laws that hold
> people accountable, we make laws to prevent people from experiencing things.
> I call these "mommy laws." Take gambling, for instance. Instead of simply
> saying "If you run up debts while gambling, you'll have to pay them," we say
> "You can't gamble." Instead of saying "If you shoot someone, you will be shot,"
> we say "You can't have a gun." In short, we take "preventative measures"
> which have the unfortunate byproduct of preventing responsible citizens from
> doing things which cause no harm to anyone. These mommy laws are designed to
> prevent us from hurting ourselves. "Don't do drugs." What difference does it
> make to society if I torch up a reefer on Friday night in my living room?
> Is it really any different than socially sanctioned drugs like alcohol? Of
> course not.

I believe we are interdependent, that practically everything we do
affects others.  When people are faced with a choice of how to respond
in an unfamiliar situation, they look at others for clues as to what is
appropriate or acceptable.  We are group creatures.

This means if you take illegal drugs, you are setting an example for others.
The idea of smoking, drinking, or taking drugs, doesn't suddenly pop into
the minds of high school kids from no where, they see it all around them.

From where I see it, using mind altering recreational drugs is not for life.
It is destructive behavior.  We know it kills hundreds of thousands of
people every year (alcohol related traffic deaths, drug overdose,
theft and violence by addicts in order to feed their addiction,
drug related violence in our inner cities and in Central America,
chronic alcoholism).

Where's the responsibility when we say by our actions it's Okay to use
illegal drugs, or drink and drive (as long as you don't get caught)?

To say: "If you shoot someone, you will be shot" won't work either.  You can't
return a nuclear weapon for a nuclear weapon.  It's suicide.  The bigger
issue is how to provide reasonable security for everyone.  Building more
guns and arming ourselves to the teeth is not the answer.

Freedom does not mean the right to do anything you want.  Freedom is only
meaningful in the context of individual responsibility.  Societies in which
everyone is free to do anthing, quickly disintegrate into societies where
a small group of people enjoy this privilege, and the rest are subjugated.

When democracy works properly, laws represent agreement among the people
on rules to help govern themselves.  Agreement is a necessary foundation
for any law because, without agreement, law is unenforceable.

Prohibition is an example.  In 1920, this nation amended the Constitution -
the most tangible result one could ask for - to prohibit the manufacture, sale
and transportation of alcoholic beverages.  But people flaunted the law; the
illicit liquor business thrived.  Why?  There was not adequate agreement among
individuals that alcohol should be outlawed.  Prohibition was repealed only a
decade later.

"Mommy laws", or agreements designed to protect our freedom?
Sounds like our democracy needs to work a lot better.
Who's responsibility is that?

- Peter

>From where I see it, using mind altering recreational drugs is not for life.
>It is destructive behavior.  We know it kills hundreds of thousands of
>people every year (alcohol related traffic deaths, drug overdose,
>theft and violence by addicts in order to feed their addiction,
>drug related violence in our inner cities and in Central America,
>chronic alcoholism).

 Chemical related traffic deaths and overdose deaths are the only deaths that
are a direct result of the chemicals themselves (and the individuals who misuse
them). Drug related violence is a direct result of the drug policies which
ensure the continued profitability of the drug trade. I posit that enough
dissension exists regarding drugs to make the drug policy unworkable and
deleterious.

>Where's the responsibility when we say by our actions it's Okay to use
>illegal drugs, or drink and drive (as long as you don't get caught)?

 The fact that drugs are illegal has no bearing whatsoever on their inherent
goodness or badness. Take alcohol, for example. Alcohol was no better after the
repeal of prohibition than it was before. Drugs are the same thing. As far as
drunk driving goes, that's more difficult. Not everybody who has .10 BAC is
incapable of driving safely. Not everyone who has <.10 BAC is capable of
driving safely. Drunk driving laws seem to be an area where we have decided
to punish people who have not yet done anything actually criminal, though they 
have put themselves in a position where a mistake is more likely.

>Building more
>guns and arming ourselves to the teeth is not the answer.

 To what question?

>Freedom does not mean the right to do anything you want.  Freedom is only
>meaningful in the context of individual responsibility. 

 Agreed.

 This is one of the problems I have in our society. As time goes on, people are
finding more and more ways to make it impossible for an individual to be
held accountable for his/her actions when something goes wrong. People are
described as sick- unable to help themselves. We take people who are willing
to do terrible things to other people and label them- in effect saying that
anyone who behaves like this has a "sickness," and so they are not really
responsible for what they do. Unfortunately, when you cannot be held accountable
for what you do, society's answer is to allow you less freedom (in case you
might do something bad which you cannot be held accountable for). This really
aggravates people like me who ARE responsible for what we do, because our
freedoms are abridged as well.

>When democracy works properly, laws represent agreement among the people
>on rules to help govern themselves.  Agreement is a necessary foundation
>for any law because, without agreement, law is unenforceable.

 This is why I feel the drug war is doomed to failure.

>"Mommy laws", or agreements designed to protect our freedom?

 Those two ought to be mutually exclusive. And I think they are, mostly.
What freedom exists when you are prevented from doing things that only
affect you? Laws creating victimless crimes are wrong, IMO. If Jack wants
to pay Sally for sexual favors, why should we arrest him (and her?) If Sally
feels that her sexual ministrations are her best source of revenue, why should
she be put in jail? Who exactly is she hurting? And so Jeff wants to do some 
lines at a party- what's the harm in that? Assuming her doesn't physically
hurt anybody (in which case he ought to be held accountable), why should he
be denied to enjoy his pleasure? And so Ralph is good at deciding the outcome
of football games before they occur- why should he be braking a law? He isn't
hurting anyone. I am really opposed to laws designed to protect us from 
ourselves. I am a big boy. I don't need another mother. I can make my own
decisions, and live (or die) with the results thereof. Why can't I be allowed
to experience this freedom without being a criminal?

 The Doctah

    
    	I agree with .21!!  Mommy laws do tend to limit what an
    	individual can do when the only outcome will effect only
    	that person. These laws are crazy in my opinion. Reply .20
    	brings out one of the first objections that pop-up when
    	one tries to ask why. That being "well, we have laws that
    	limit you freedom from killing anyone you wish". Give me
    	a break!! The two are not the same. Mommy laws only effect
    	the individual concerned, while laws like Murder effect
    	what actions I may do to others. The way I see it is like
    	with the gun laws, a bunch of people that don't shoot and
    	dislike guns say, "Well, we don't like them and they CAN
    	kill, so there fore we will stop you from owning YOURS".
    	I don't ski, think golf is a waste of time, should I try
    	to get laws passed to ban them? I could argue that skiing
    	can be harful, you could break your leg or hit someone
    	else. Golf, now there is a danger if I ever saw one, do
    	you know what damage a golf ball can do to someone?
    
    	I say any law should pass a test. That being DOES THIS
    	ACTION EFFECT ONLY THE PERSON DOING IT. If the answer
    	is YES then leave it alone!!  If you want to waste your
    	mind away on drugs, it should your choice, not someone else.
    	If you want to kill someone else, then that's a different matter,
    	your actions no longer effect only you. I fear the way we are
    	heading, the day will come when we will have laws that will
    	start dealing with what we can think as well, because if you
    	want to control what a person can do to themself thinking is
    	a part of the process.
    
    	G_B

    re .22:
    
    I agree with you that there's too many people who want to regulate the
    world to allow only their hobbies, but the proposal you made won't fly.
    You see, there's the simple problem that if you have a hobby that you
    can only hurt yourself with, then you automatically hurt everyone else
    -- you hurting yourself makes other people's insurance rates go up.
    Don't laugh, I've heard some "mommy laws" defended with precisely that
    argument.
    
    	Jon

    
    	RE: .22
    
    	Then does that mean you have the right to control say the amount
    	of excersize I do or don't do?  When you get right down to it,
    	a person can harm themself with too little or too much. How
    	about skiing? I don't ski and my insurance rate for covering
    	me might go up because you choose to ski and take the danger
    	you might hurt yourself.
    
    	I think using insurance rates to justify regulating anyones
    	activities is crazy. If this is allowed to stand as a valid
    	reason, then who gets to choose just what activities we can
    	or can not do? The goverment? You? Me? What makes you think
    	the goverment is in any position to be an expert on what
    	hobbies any person can have?
    
    	I don't drink at all, therefore should I impose my beliefs
    	on you using the justification that I am acting in your
    	best interest to stop you from harming yourself? I view
    	alcohol as a worse threat than say someone who chooses to
    	sit home on a friday night and smoke a joint. I've never
    	seen anyone stoned on pot be half as beligerent(sp) as someone
    	whos had a few too many to drink. To me, a drunk person is
    	someone I can't stand to be around, they are either a know-it-all
    	or picking a fight. The people I have seen stoned on pot on
    	the other hand have been very mellow and minded their own business.
    	This plus a person on alcohol can't walk, much less drive. I've
    	yet to see a stoned person unable to walk. Even at this, does
    	this mean I have the right to say this person or anyone else
    	can't have a drink? I may have the right to say you can't drink
    	and drive or take a swing at someone, because this action now
    	effects another person. Also if your'e going to use insurance
    	rates to justify a persons activities, then what's to stop
    	you from making a case about any other aspect of that persons
    	life? I mean I have the choice of seeking medical treatment
    	for whatever I might have or not to. If insurance rates where
    	used to justify things, then you could force me to accept
    	medical treatment on the grounds that if I don't have the treatment
    	then I might die before I reach old age. Since rates are
    	based on average ages I would tend to pull down the average
    	and might cause your rates to go up. Would you say you have the
    	right to force me to accept treatment against my wishes?
    
    	G_B
    

    
    	Sorry, my last reply should have been RE: .23 
    
    	redfaced
    
    	G_B

    I think this note should be moved to Soapbox, as it has left the
    personal and moved into the political realm.
    
    On the original topic, I congratulate Kris on his personal insight
    and his efforts to take responsibilty for his actions.
    
    -roger
    
    

There's a brand of Philosophy that deals with People's rights to live their own
lives and be accountable for their own actions  called Objectivism, authored by
Ayn Rand.  There's even a notesfile on the subject.

Jim.

re .21 .22

I agree with you completely that actions that only affect the person
taking that action should not be made illegal.

I also agree that it is silly to cite insurance cost as a justification
for restricting activities that otherwise only affect the individual.
The whole purpose of insurance is to share risks and costs (not to force
people to only accept certain risks).

I think where we disagree is that some things you see as only affecting
a single individual, I see as harmful to many people.

For example, a person who drinks and then tries to decide for themselves
whether they are fit to drive is putting us all at risk because drinking
seriously impares their judgement.  Having a designated driver, or drinking
in an environment where there is no need to drive home, is much safer.
Have you ever heard the defense: "It wasn't my fault, I was drunk at the time".
Where's the responsibility here?

As another example, if we say by our actions it's Okay to view other peoples
bodies as objects to be baught and sold, this is not harmless.  What we do
sets a standard for others.  In our country, thousands of young kids are
seduced and ultimately die on the street because of our "legitimate" sex
industry.

I don't favor laws that needlessly restrict peoples freedoms.
I do believe that many activities we take for granted as not affecting
anyone else are actually causing us great harm.

I believe it is this ignorance which has caused the war on drugs to fail.
And it will continue to fail until we see our interconnectedness, and
accept responsibility for how our actions influence others.

- Peter

    I have read the last few notes with a good deal of interest.   I tend
    to agree with Kris in his belief that we all must work on accepting
    respnsibilties for our actions, but having been through a good deal
    of personal pain from incidents that happened when someone else chose
    not to accept their responsibilities makes me certainly wonder about
    enacting laws ('mommy laws') to protect ourselves.
    
    I agree that prohibition was a complete and total failure, but I don't
    agree that ALL laws of that sort are doomed to failure.   I believe
    that the illegality of drugs have prevented more rampant use and abuse
    of them -- we have succeeded in at least making it more difficult to
    obtain them (especially for younger children); that stands for
    something.   Harsher penalties and the refusal to accept the belief
    the common excuse that "he/she was driven to it" or "everybody's doing
    it" would also help.    (As my mother used to say when I used the old
    'but-why-can't-I-everyone-else-is' line on her -- 'if everyone were
    jumping of the Brooklyn bridge would you jump too?')  While I agree
    that it is not 'right' to restrict personal freedoms, I certainly don't
    agree that anyone should do anything they want so long as the
    perception remains that they are "not hurting anyone but themselves".
    
    I put up for example a recent tragedy in my life:
    
    A friend from college (an Assistant District Attorney) was recently
    killed in a head-on drunk driving crash.  She was returning home
    from work at her usual (late -- 10pm) time.   Her killer was returning
    from 'having a few with people from work.'   he walked away from the
    accident.  His comment to police?  I "wanted to unwind a little after
    work.  I'm not drunk.  I've had a few.   That's my right"   
    
    Yes, it certainly is his right to "unwind" -- but his right to "unwind"
    crossed over into Laurie's 'right' to live.   Do I believe stricter
    drunk driving laws would help prevent this sort of tragedy?   Yes.  Mommy 
    laws or no, were there more strongly worded laws with STIFFER penalties, 
    I believe that the number of fatalities related to alcohol would be reduced.
    While I am not an advocate of any limitations on personal freedoms, I
    am a strong advocate of forcing people to accept responsibility in some
    way, shape or form.  If you can't get them to accept it without laws,
    then you provide laws with punishments to force them to.  Sort of a
    warped Pavlovian theory --- 'do it and get punished'.  Sooner or later
    most people will learn, if not to accept responsibility, at least to
    follow the law.   (any psychology students out there probably remember
    the mouse tests, where mice were placed in cages with live electrical
    wires around them.   It wasn't too long before the mice learned not to
    touch the wall of the cages -- they would get shocked.)  The same
    principle works here.   You punish bad behaviour -- and refuse to
    accept any of the commonly held 'it wasn't my fault' excuses.
    
    I realize that what I have said here has not put forth any possible
    solutions; for there is no easy solution.  How do you force people to
    take responsibility?   I don't know.  All I know is that until you
    have to accept that someone else's inability to accept responsibility
    caused a tragedy, you don't know how important 'mommy laws' can be, 
    or how far they may be able to go to force responsibility on people.
    
    /Dawn-Marie
                                                          

>For example, a person who drinks and then tries to decide for themselves
>whether they are fit to drive is putting us all at risk because drinking
>seriously impares their judgement.  
    
    My objection to the drunk driving laws as currently written is that
    they are overly arbitrary for my tastes. Because a certain driver has a
    BAC of .10 certainly does _not_ mean that he is unable to drive. It is
    true that he reactions are slower than when he is at his optimum, but
    they may still be better than other times when he is overly tired or on
    cough medicine or whatever (which is perfectly legal.) So the old
    "reduced reactions" story doesn't wash with me. I think that drunk
    driving laws should not include a certain BAC as prima facie evidence
    clause. it ough to be dependent on your ability to perform, nothing
    more. I do believe that drunk driving should be a punishable offense-
    with a very harsh punishment. I just think the criteria should be
    limited to ability to drive.
    
>Have you ever heard the defense: "It wasn't my fault, I was drunk at the time".
>Where's the responsibility here?
    
    That "defense" is only a problem when people accept it as reasonable.
    In my opinion, being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs is
    not a carte blanche excuse to do whatever you want. You are still
    responsible for things you do when under the influence.
    
>As another example, if we say by our actions it's Okay to view other peoples
>bodies as objects to be baught and sold, this is not harmless.  What we do
>sets a standard for others.  In our country, thousands of young kids are
>seduced and ultimately die on the street because of our "legitimate" sex
>industry. 
    
    Here our opinions differ. If selling sex were legitimized, perhaps the
    young people who have no other recourse except to sell their bodies
    would be able to do so in better conditions. In any case, whose bodies
    are they? Should they not be free to do with them what they wish?
    
    The Doctah

>    My objection to the drunk driving laws as currently written is that
>    they are overly arbitrary for my tastes. Because a certain driver has a
>    BAC of .10 certainly does _not_ mean that he is unable to drive.

I don't see .10 BAC as overly arbitrary.  I've seen studies indicating
judgement and motor response start to be impaired at as little .02 BAC.
At .10 BAC, a person is seriously drunk.  It's hard for me to see why a
person in this condition should be driving, no matter how in control they
may feel.  I consider driving under these circumstances a case of reckless
disregard for the well being of others.

The point of the law however is not that it's Okay to drive at .09 BAC,
and not Okay at .10.  Rather, the point is that drinking and driving is
EXTREMELY dangerous, and is therefore to be discouraged.  .10 BAC is not
intended as a safety standard, but as an enforcement tool.

A lot of people believe it's Okay to have a few drinks to unwind
before driving home.  In fact, we might observe this to be the
prevailing ethic by which people judge and regulate their own
behavior.  Stricter drunk driving laws won't significantly reduce DWI.
We need a new ethic.

>    Here our opinions differ. If selling sex were legitimized, perhaps the
>    young people who have no other recourse except to sell their bodies
>    would be able to do so in better conditions. In any case, whose bodies
>    are they? Should they not be free to do with them what they wish?

I don't think this captures the subtlety of what is happening.
Consider a young person who has run away from home and has never
sold their body before.  They don't just decide to sell their body
in a vacuum.  Two factors influencing their decision are:

(1) There is a strong demand.  They see it is an opportunity
    to make some quick money.

(2) The prevailing ethic in much of our society is there's nothing
    wrong with it.  They don't see any harm.

The problem is, once they start selling their body, it becomes
addictive.  They become trapped in a culture (the street) which
strongly re-enforces this behavoir (sometimes violently in
the form a pimp, kids are very vulnerable).

Living on the "street" re-enforces other destructive attitudes as well.
Most people in this environment (especially impressionable kids) quickly
lose their sense of self worth, and may turn to to drugs to escape their pain.
Soon they see no alternative but to sell their body, or pan handle
to get by.  Many of them end up dead, or incarcerated at an early age
with little chance of rehabilitation.

It all started so innocently.  Two consenting individuals, what
could be the harm?  As I see it, it's killing people just as surely
as if we pulled the trigger ourselves.  The solution isn't new laws,
we need to adopt a new ethic.  The best and perhaps only way to bring
this about is through education.

- Peter

>At .10 BAC, a person is seriously drunk. 

 Some are, some aren't. Back in college, they had a state trooper come in with a
breathalyzer to show people what their BAC was (so they'd know how much was
legally too much, I guess). The procedure was as follows, the cop would give
you a field sobriety test, then you'd use the breathalyzer. He'd say if he felt
that you were impaired after the sobriety test, but before the breathalyzer.
A bunch of my friends and I had been packing 'em in at the pub, and happened
to stroll by while this was happening. We thought, why not- just for giggles.
I passed the sobriety test. I blew .19. He made me use the machine again- same
reult. He couldn't believe it. I shrugged and went on my merry way. The point of
this story isn't how much I personally could drink (at the time) and still
pass a sobriety test. The point is that not everybody is drunk at the same
BAC level.

>.10 BAC is not
>intended as a safety standard, but as an enforcement tool.

 Yes, and it's arbitrary. 

>Stricter drunk driving laws won't significantly reduce DWI.
>We need a new ethic.

 I agree that we need a new ethic, but stricter drunk driving laws coupled with
education DO, in fact, reduce the number of drunk drivers as should be obvious 
by the numbers posted by most every state these days.

>The problem is, once they start selling their body, it becomes
>addictive.  They become trapped in a culture (the street) which
>strongly re-enforces this behavoir (sometimes violently in
>the form a pimp, kids are very vulnerable).

 I contend that this situation exists largely _because_ prostiution is illegal
and hence must be conducted by people who are willing to break the law for a
buck- (generally known as shady characters.)

>The solution isn't new laws, we need to adopt a new ethic. 

 The solution is to repeal victimless crime laws AND to adopt a new ethis 
through education. There will still be some who choose that lifestyle. I
don't think there's a need for them to be criminals.

 The Doctah

Re: .31

> At .10 BAC, a person is seriously drunk.

The Doctah beat me to it.  Where did you get your information?  You'd be
surprised how sober you can feel and still be over .10.  Sometime if you're
at a bar that has one of those pay-a-quarter-and-get-your-BAC-checked
machines, try it out.  I don't want to sound like I'm advocating drunk
driving, but I think the media has been a double-edged sword on the whole
drugs/drunk driving thing.  On one hand, they've greatly increased public
awareness, and have probably spared dozens of lives.  On the other hand,
their depiction I think has created a paranoia among the populace:  People
believe that .10 must mean you're really drunk, if you're over .10 and you
drive anyway, you are very likely to have an accident and/or kill someone,
your brain fries on drugs, if you do drugs you are a psychopath and a danger
to society, etc.  Since most people nowadays get their thinking prepackaged
for them on TV, no one questions the absolute truth of these statements.
This in turn leads to the "Mommy laws" we've been discussing, which in turn
relieve people who aren't afraid of responsibility of some of their freedoms.

Carl

    How drunk you feel has absolutely no connection to how drunk
    you are. 
    
    .10 BAC was chosen as a reasonable threshhold by many states.  
    Yes, some people can still seem functional with a .10 BAC --
    
    .10 BAC doesn't necessarily mean "seriously drunk."
    However, .10 BAC does seriously affect your reaction time,
    and consequently, your driving.
    
    The source of my information?  The New Jersey State Police.
    
    					andrew

    Reply .34 brings out a good point. A QUANTITATIVE level of drunkenness
    has to be established, so that cases can hold up in court. Just
    "thinking he appeared to be drunk" may fall flat on its face in an
    appeal. With one standard, there is some logic in the system (though
    the actual amount can vary state to state, although I think .10 is
    usually used).
    
    Although some people are fine at .10, I've seen the result of DWI's too
    often to think that this number is too low for an overall standard (11
    years with PD). Like any "limit" law (i.e. DWI, speed (at least before
    the politicians got into the 55 act), etc)), some level must be chosen,
    and in this case, .10 seems reasonable for the majority of drivers.
    
    Eric

>A QUANTITATIVE level of drunkenness
>    has to be established, so that cases can hold up in court.

 Exactly my point. BAC is not a measure of drunkenness. It is a measure of
the quantity of alcohol in the system as a percent. I would prefer a battery of
standardized tests of coordination, vision, and balance performed in the
station after failing a field sobriety test and videotaped (a gentle nudge
to those who _are_ drunk but would otherwise contest it).

 The Doctah

    Re: .36
    
         Sounds like you're willing to pay a lot more taxes just to
    let a few people drink and drive.
    
                                         Greg

It seems we've started a real dialogue here.  That's great.

re .31 .32

I accept your point as valid.  "Seriously drunk" was a loaded phrase.
Let's say at .10 BAC, one is significantly subject to the physical and
mental affects of alcohol.

Your argument that .10 BAC is arbitrary and should not be illegal
doesn't follow to me.  Forgive me if I mis-understand you, but it
sounds to me like you are saying:

  Alcohol doesn't affect everyone the same way.  Some people can handle
  more liquer than others.  I can handle my liquer.  Just because I've
  had a few drinks, doesn't mean I should not be allowed to drive.

This is what many people think.  Perhaps the main reason they think this is
because its the dominant ethic.  It's what most of the people they talk to
think.  So they proceed to drive while intoxicated and kill people.

Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of this attitude
and the behavior it leads to.

Who is responsible for this carnage?  Is it only the people driving the actual
vehicles involved, the ones who were unfortunate enough to end up
in an accident, or does it extend to the society at large that supports
the attitiude which leads to this behavior?

  ...but I can drive safely after having a few drinks...  It's not
  fair to penalize me because some people can't handle their liquer
  and don't realize it...

What about the hundreds of thousands who are killed each year.
Is it fair to them?

Where do we draw the line between those who seem to be able to handle it,
those who think they can handle it, but in fact the probabilities just
haven't caught up with them yet, and those who have already been unfortunate?

What's the trade-off between your right to drink and drive assuming you can
do it safely, and others peoples right to live?

To me, being responsible means more than just being responsible for
the direct affects of our actions, it also means being responsible
for how our actions influence others.

- Peter

>Your argument that .10 BAC is arbitrary and should not be illegal
>doesn't follow to me.

 My only objection to using .10 BAC as the yardstick by which drivers are
measured is that it is not a measure of drunkenness. You cannot tell how
drunk a person is simply by checking their BAC. It is not that easy. So many
factors figure into one's impairment, that to rely on a single data point
as the end-all of proof is rather unscientific.

 Part of the problem is that prosecutors rely very heavily on the BAC for
evidence in a DWI charge. The result is that many people who cannot handle
liquor but have under .10 BAC get off because prosecutors are reluctant to
try a case without that magic number as evidence. This situation (someone
who is guilty but slips through the cracks in the system) is worsened by
the number of people on the other side of the line (people with over .10 who
are not as impaired but_do_ get convicted). And I think it is a failure
to deal correctly with the problem.

>Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of this attitude
>and the behavior it leads to.

 The solution is to educate people into understanding the consequences of
drinking and driving, to increase the penalties for drunken driving 
considerably, and to increase the penalties for vehicular homicide when caused
substantially by intoxication. 

>Who is responsible for this carnage?  Is it only the people driving the actual
>vehicles involved, the ones who were unfortunate enough to end up
>in an accident, or does it extend to the society at large that supports
>the attitiude which leads to this behavior?

 I don't believe in passing the burden onto society. Each driver must accept
responsibility for their own actions each and every time they get behind the
wheel. By assigning blame to society, we dilute the responsibility incumbent
upon each individual driver. I don't have a problem with the attitude of
society when it allows one to make their own decisions (within reason). I think
that the attitude of drunken driving being acceptable is on the way out, 
thankfully. It used to be cute to tell your story about "I don't know how I got
home last night." People are realising that acting amused at such stories only
encourages that behavior.

> What's the trade-off between your right to drink and drive assuming you can
>do it safely, and others peoples right to live?

 We seem to be failing to fully communicate here. It's not a matter of my
or anyone else's right to drink and drive. My problem is not with drunken
driving laws per se, it's with the mechanism of enforcement. 

>To me, being responsible means more than just being responsible for
>the direct affects of our actions, it also means being responsible
>for how our actions influence others.

 I suppose you could make a case for that, but in the purest philosophical
sense, do these other parties not have responsibility for their actions?
(That they might be kids does negate alot of that, admittedly) So I guess
I agree with you to an extent.

 In the end, I have to admit that my objections to using .10 BAC are primarily
philosphical in nature. Having seen a few friends get pinched when they weren't
really a danger has certainly influenced my perceptions of the law. Having
seen some people that were dangerous get off because of the heavy reliance
upon the BAC has influenced me too. I am very interested in keeping dangerous
operators off the road (intoxicated or not). I would prefer a fairer system
about doing it, that's all.

 The Doctah

    >In the end, I have to admit that my objections to using .10 BAC are
    >primarily philosphical in nature. Having seen a few friends get pinched
    >when they weren't really a danger has certainly influenced my
    >perceptions of the law. Having seen some people that were dangerous get
    >off because of the heavy reliance upon the BAC has influenced me too. I
    >am very interested in keeping dangerous operators off the road
    >(intoxicated or not). I would prefer a fairer system about doing it,
    >that's all.
    
    Oh, okay, I finally get it -- I gotta question:
    
    Doctah, whatever prompted you to believe that Life is Fair?
    
    					andrew

    re: .39
    
    That's a good point about people under the magic number -- I'm
    unsafe on the roads at probably about .05.  I don't handle liquor
    well at all and don't drive if I've had more than about half a
    beer in the two hours before.
    
    --bonnie

>    Doctah, whatever prompted you to believe that Life is Fair?

 I haven't harbored the illusion that life is fair since I was four. :-)

 Given, however, the push to make life fairer (eg equal pay for equal work,
anti-discrimination laws, etc) I try to get things to be as fair as possible.

 The Doctah

Life may not be fair, but we should try to be as fair as possible.

Jim.

>  My only objection to using .10 BAC as the yardstick by which drivers are
> measured is that it is not a measure of drunkenness.

True, but it is a clear indication of whether a person has been drinking.
You don't reach .10 BAC by taking cough medicine, or having a beer,
or a glass of wine a few hours ago.

Is the purpose of the law to prevent drinking and driving (a dangerous
and irresponsible behavior in my opinion), or to prevent people who have
reached some level of intoxication from driving?

The later suggests an underlying premise that some amount of drinking
and driving is acceptable, as long as it's not "too much".

  "It's just those irresponsible people who over do it, I never have
  more than a few beers before driving."

>  Part of the problem is that prosecutors rely very heavily on the BAC for
> evidence in a DWI charge. The result is that many people who cannot handle
> liquor but have under .10 BAC get off because prosecutors are reluctant to
> try a case without that magic number as evidence. This situation (someone
> who is guilty but slips through the cracks in the system) is worsened by
> the number of people on the other side of the line (people with over .10 who
> are not as impaired but_do_ get convicted). And I think it is a failure
> to deal correctly with the problem.

We can't expect prosecutors and jurries to understand the law any better
than we do.  If we accept the premise that some amount of drinking and
driving is Okay, this does seem unfair.

I don't accept the premise.  I think a person who drinks and then drives
is behaving irresponsibly regardless of whether their BAC is .05 or .15,
or if a police officer happens to catch them in the process.
.10 BAC is an imperfect and widely mis-understood enforcement tool,
but I don't consider it unreasonable.

>  I don't believe in passing the burden onto society. Each driver must accept
> responsibility for their own actions each and every time they get behind the
> wheel. By assigning blame to society, we dilute the responsibility incumbent
> upon each individual driver. I don't have a problem with the attitude of
> society when it allows one to make their own decisions (within reason). I
> think that the attitude of drunken driving being acceptable is on the way
> out, thankfully. It used to be cute to tell your story about "I don't know
> how I got home last night." People are realising that acting amused at such
> stories only encourages that behavior.

Interesting.  You do acknowledge that our attitudes can affect other peoples
behavior, but you don't think we should accept any responsibility for it
so as not to dilute the responsibility incumbent upon each individual driver.

I don't think responsibility is a zero sum game.  I want to avoid blaming
people (blame, blame, go away).  The more important question to me is what
is the reality, and how can we respond?  What works, and what doesn't.
From where I see it, we have some attitudes that aren't working.

- Peter

>If we accept the premise that some amount of drinking and
>driving is Okay, this does seem unfair. I don't accept the premise. 

 I guess we have to examine why we consider drinking and driving to be an
unwise or unsafe activity. I believe that the problem with drinking and driving
stems from the physiological effects of alcohol on the body. The effects which I 
consider germane to driving are limited to those that affect the central
nervous system (I suppose the peripheral nervous system should be included
for completeness). 

 What exactly is it about intoxication that is deleterious to driving? Well,
the ability to recognize and process relevant driving information is diminished.
One's ability to focus and see clearly are impaired. Balance and equilibrium
are disrupted. And the physical movements in response to processed information
are less controllable.

 Now the question is, how do we prevent people from driving dangerously?
The first order of processing would be to say "If you have any amount of
alcohol in your system, you may not drive." This is easy and simple. However,
people who stopped drinking a relatively long time ago and who no longer
appreciably undergo the physiological changes of the alcohol say "jeez-
why should I not be able to drive because I had a drink a while ago? I'm no
longer impaired." And this is a reasonable viewpoint. If you are not impaired,
what difference does it make whether you had beer, milk or coffee? It doesn't.

 So the next order of processing gives us "If you are impaired, you may not
drive." This makes more sense. However, human nature and lawyers being what
they are, law enforcement needs to stack the deck to prevent dangerous
people from hiring the best lawyers and being not held responsible for their
activities. Thus, some easily implementable means is discovered which makes
law enforcement's job easier (if not more fair). We have the breathalyzer
and BAC laws. But these methods do not measure impairment- which is what we
ought to be measuring. That's more difficult.

> The more important question to me is what
>is the reality, and how can we respond?  What works, and what doesn't.

 So what you're saying is that we can engineer people to only do what we
consider to be acceptable behavoirs by using laws to reduce the level of
self determination of each individual? By placing increasing restrictions on
free-will, we can prevent bad things from happening, thus precluding the
necessity of holding someone (or group) responsible when things go awry?
Sounds awful Machiavellian to me (unless I misunderstand). It is my opinion that
no amount of social programming will ever prevent all bad things from happening.
My solution is to hold individuals accountable for their results of choices
they make. It is also to allow each individual as much control as possible over
his/her choices. 

 The Doctah

    Having been hit by a drunk driving a pick up at 80 miles an hour
    through a red light... I don't give a flying **** whether the law
    is fair or not.  If you want to drink and not be tested, drink at
    home or walk to the corner bar.  Your precious right to decide how
    sauced you are by yourself is *dangerous* to my health and well
    being.
    
    

    I find this an interesting discussion, in light of the current efforts
    to reduce the number of people drinking and driving.  Given the number
    of accidents caused by drunk drivers, arguing about whether we should
    be ruled by taking personal responsibility or by enforcing laws against
    drunk driving is irresponsible in and of itself!
    
    1.  People who have been drinking cause proportionally more accidents
        than people who have not been drinking.  Reaction time is slower and
        judgment is impaired.
    
    2.  Some people who have been drunk and have caused accidents continue 
        to drink and cause accidents.  They do not learn about their
        drunkenness level and they do not learn to take responsibility.
    
    3.  Laws exist to prohibit this behavior, to protect others.  They are
        enforced using a measure that can be easily tested and is objective
        (blood alcohol content) rather than subjective (how drunk a person
        seems to be).
    
    I would assume that .10 BAC was not a number chosen at random, but was
    a number chosen because in physiological tests most people experienced
    impaired reaction time with that much alcohol in their bloodstream. 
    (Am I right?  I haven't researched it.)  What measure would you suggest
    using instead?  (Make it easily portable in a police car, accurate for
    all people, and objectively quantifiable.)
    
    Why insist that the measure be completely equally valid for every
    person? It's not perfect, and the machines used to test it are not
    perfect.  But it's reasonably accurate in *most* cases!  It's like
    insurance company charts -- they do not promise that if you weigh this
    much for your height you will live to exactly 79 years old.   What they
    do tell you is that, statistically, you are more *likely* to live at a
    particular height and weight.  You may weigh 20 pounds more and live
    until you're 103.  That doesn't mean that the charts are wrong, in
    general.
    
    I guess I don't see why it's worse to err on the side of being "too
    safe" than on the side of "not safe enough".  Given that some people
    *will not* take responsibility, aren't you being irresponsible by
    insisting that the law should take into account how well *you* process
    alcohol?  
    
    Pam

    .46 said what I said in .47, shorter and better!
    
    Pam
    

    
		I have  two  stories  to tell about drinking and driving 
	and  taking  responsibility  for your own actions.  This is much 
	longer  than  I  had  thought  it would be.  I have never really 
	expressed  myself on these issues before and am grateful for the 
	opportunity to share them here.  I apologize to any that my take 
	offense  to  my beliefs.  I am grateful that in this forum we can 
	agree to disagree.  
	
	If  you  are  a  sensitive individual and care not for reality's 
	sometimes  gruesome  reality  you  may  want to skip to the next 
	reply at this time.....


	Once upon a time there was a beautiful family.  The father loved 
	the mother,  the mother loved the father,  they both loved their 
	children and  the  children loved the parents.   They  had  many 
	friends who saw that love.  They were  an  example of the way we 
	felt love should be.  
		It was vacation time, so they packed the car and started 
	the drive.  Father was driving, mother was the  front passenger, 
	the son was seated behind father and the daughter behind mother.  
	It was not yet 6:00 PM when it happened.  No one is positive how 
	it actually happened.  However, the state and reservation police 
	theorize  that  the  drunk  driver hit them almost head on while 
	traveling at an extreme rate of speed.   The father and son were 
	fatally injured,  the mother was seriously injured, the daughter 
	while seriously injured regained consciousness shortly after the 
	accident.  It was hours before the first emergency crew arrived.
	The daughter conscious yet pinned in the wreckage unable to help 
	watched her father and brother die.   She thought her mother was 
	dead too.  The drunk driver was unconscious  at the wheel at the 
	time of the accident and so doesn't  remember  the accident.  As 
	often happens to those involved in traumatic events,  neither the 
	mother  nor  the  daughter recall the events directly preceding 
	the accident.
		Not  only  was  the destruction and death of this family 
	felt by the surviving family  members it was felt by an enormous
	number of friends.  I  am still affected by them and it has been 
	more than 10 years.
	
		My reason for telling you about them is two fold:
	#1 - The murderer had been stopped for driving drunk before.  He 
	is still at large.  He received a slap on the hand  and was told 
	not to do it again.  He was not held accountable/responsible for 
	the deaths of these innocent people.
	#2 - These murders occurred before there were BAC levels used as 
	guide  lines  for  determining  the  legal intoxication level of 
	drivers.  But, even  if  the  State  of Arizona had had them, he 
	would not have been held by them since he was an Indian, driving 
	on  a  reservation which  is  governed solely by the reservation 
	authorities.  


	My second story touches a little closer home:
		I  have a cousin that came from out of state to study at 
	Arizona State University.   He was a quiet and studious type yet 
	had  been  accepted  by  a fraternity.   One Friday night he and 
	several others were invited to a dinner party.  He assumed since 
	it was a dinner  party  he  would  just  wait to eat till he got 
	there.  He drove his car and had three passengers.   He  arrived 
	at the party to find he  had been  misinformed.   It  was  not a 
	dinner party.  There was a keg of beer and a few snacks.  He and 
	his passengers stayed about four hours and he had two beers.  On 
	the drive home he misread the traffic signs and turned the wrong 
	way on to a one way street.  His car hit another vehicle head on 
	killing the other driver instantly.   My cousin was hospitalized 
	for 3 months  for  many injuries.  His passengers were scratched 
	and bruised.  His BAC was .09  which is under the legal limit of 
	intoxication.  He was found guilty of Driving While Intoxicated, 
	Vehicular Manslaughter,Failure To Yield Right of Way and Failure 
	To Control his Vehicle.  Luckily he was not sentenced to prison 
	but to 200 hours of public service.   He completed  the required 
	time and continues to speak to  high school and college students 
	about the consequences of drinking even a little and driving. He 
	has been in counseling and is  involved in  monetary restitution 
	to the victim's family.   His parent's auto insurance claimed he 
	was not covered under their policy so he is also paying back for 
	court fees  and  fines.   He was 18 years old when he killed the 
	driver.   He is now 22 and still paying for his lack of control.  
	He  will  continue  to pay emotionally for the rest of his life. 
	
	Strong opinions follow.
	
	What is the point of sharing these tales?
		There are people that  do  not  take  responsibility for 
	their  actions.  That are in fact excused by the courts &/or the 
	police (etc.) that they do not have to take responsibility. Even 
	though they have  hurt,  killed and/or maimed others.   They are 
	told "That wasn't a nice thing to do, ya know. You really should
	not do that anymore."   That  has  not  stopped  them and we are 
	foolish to believe it will!
		Yet,  there  are also those people who have accepted the 
	responsibility  and even taken it a step further.  They continue 
	to  do  everything they can  to  help others become aware of the 
	tragic and lifetime long effect that a single minute can have on 
	others as well as yourself.  
		My friends died a horrible death.  The  daughter  was in 
	counseling  for  a  long  time  dealing  with everything she was 
	forced  to  watch while she was pinned in the wreckage.  Yet the 
	person responsible never even went to court!   How  many  others 
	has he hurt or killed or maimed?   How many more will he affect?  
	He may not remember or even care.
		My  cousin  took responsibility for his actions.  He was 
	not  LEGALLY  drunk  and  could  have  LEGALLY pleaded innocent. 
	However he chose instead to accept that he  was the cause of the
	woman death.  He had been drinking.   He  can not bring back the 
	woman he killed.   But he can do everything in his power to help 
	others avoid making the same tragic judgment he made.  
		My personal thoughts on drinking and driving are that if 
	you drink  ANY  amount of alcohol or consume  ANY  amount of any 
	drug be it legal or illegal you should not drive.  If you do and 
	you are involved in an accident YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE.  NOT 
	the person who sold you the beer, or your friend for giving  you 
	the drugs.  YOU are responsible.  If you think you can drink and
	then drive you are only lying to yourself.   In my youth I would 
	drive while drunk.  I was never caught.  I thank the Powers that 
	I never hurt anyone because of it.  I no longer drink and drive.  
	I value my life and the lives of  others  too  highly  to  allow 
	myself  to selfishly risk innocent people for a moments  passing 
	pleasure.  
		I am glad they have set a BAC level, but feel it is much 
	too high.  I feel it should be lower and  the  courts  should be 
	even more strict on DWI offenders.  

	Peggy 

>    Having been hit by a drunk driving a pick up at 80 miles an hour
>    through a red light... I don't give a flying **** whether the law
>    is fair or not. 

 Obviously you are exceptionally objective about this situation. Thanks for your
insight.

>make it .05...

 What makes .05 better? Because it's lower? Why not .02?

>Given the number
>    of accidents caused by drunk drivers, arguing about whether we should
>    be ruled by taking personal responsibility or by enforcing laws against
>    drunk driving is irresponsible in and of itself!

 Pay attention, please. The question is NOT whether we "should be ruled by
taking personal responsibility or by enforcing laws" at all. The question is
which laws and how to enforce them while preserving personal freedom as much
as possible. And it certainly isn't irresponsible. To NOT discuss this would
be irresponsible.

>    2.  Some people who have been drunk and have caused accidents continue 
>        to drink and cause accidents

 Why is this? Because they have not been held accountable for their actions.

>They are
>        enforced using a measure that can be easily tested and is objective
>        (blood alcohol content) rather than subjective (how drunk a person
>        seems to be).

 Ok. You want to be totally objective? Make each driver drive on a standardized
course and be timed with points off for crossing lines, etc. Make a certain
arbitrary score the standard. If you want a license, you must be able to
attain the score. Say the standard to be attained is 150 pts. Paula gets
a score of 210 when sober. Mike gets a score of 155 when sober. Paula has
two beers, but because of her body weight, has a BAC of .10. She takes the
course and gets a 180. She is somehow still judged to be more dangerous than
Mike? 

 You (general) seem to be mostly concerned with accidents caused by drunk
drivers. I am more concerned by accidents in general caused by poor drivers,
some of whom are drunk. So my hat's off to you if you prevent 100 deaths by
drunk drivers but don't reduce the deaths by sober, poor drivers. I'm
sure the families of the dead will be pleased to know the killers of their
sons and daughters were sober.

>    Why insist that the measure be completely equally valid for every
>    person?

 First of all, I'm not insisting. And there's no test that would be equally
valid for every driver. What has gotten me upset by all this is that many
people are ready to hang a driver who's had a drink, while being totally
quiet about a driver who's on prescription medicine (or cold medicine or 
whatever) simply because the law is written in an imperfect way. Failure to
question the reasons behind things is absurd. Why should the law only apply
to certain impairments? Should you be entitled to any less protection under
the law if the driver that hit you was merely overtired or on an "acceptable"
drug? Should a person who is unable to drive after a Dristan be held any less
accountable than a person unable to drive after drinking a fifth of gin?
But those aren't illegal. But they are equally dangerous (for some people).
Should we require a complete blood workup every time one drives?

>Given that some people
>    *will not* take responsibility, aren't you being irresponsible by
>    insisting that the law should take into account how well *you* process
>    alcohol?  

 That's the problem. Whether you take responsibility or not is moot- people
who screw up should be HELD accountable (whether they admit their responsibility
or not). And I am certainly not being irresponsible in asking that the law
be applied consistently to ALL factors of impairment. If it were, the number of
traffic accidents would plummet. But are you unwilling to allow the law to
dictate whether you should be able to drive after taking a Dristan?

 The Doctah

    enjoyed the last few... interesting discussion.
    
    are we a society?  i will not take a stand on the .10 law.  i choose
    not to drive when drinking.  but, isn't that law (and many others)
    written because the MAJORITY of our society (or maybe just a
    significant percentage) *ARE* sufficiently impared at that level
    so as to present a real danger to the rest of society?  
    
    agreed that the law may be unfair to some individuals... but, i
    have long held that in a society, the individual is often called
    on to defer to the greater good of the whole.  
    
    yet, we seem so intent on being alowed to express our OWN INDIVIDUAL
    uniquenesses that we resent being lumped into the very society which
    allows us to express that notion.  
    
    i view driving as a privilege extended to me by the state.  it is
    not my right.  the state (society) has the right to revoke my privilege
    when i threaten it.  there are many such privileges in this country.
    if we abuse them then (back to the base note) we should blame no
    one but ourselves...and accept responsibility for that abuse.
    
    in a previous note (i believe .21) the author seems opposed to "the
    war" on drugs.  i believe he expressed the notion that 'it's our
    body...we should be allowed' (paraphrased, of course), and that
    individuals should be allowed the choice (to do a couple of lines,
    i think he said).
    
    well, my kids are pretty young.  i try to teach them about drugs.
    but what if some jerk approaches them at school and "convinces"
    them to try anyway?  should he be "free" to do that?  should we
    have no recourse against that?  isn't alcohol enough?  sure prohibition
    didn't work...and look at the mess some of us (and our kids) are
    in because of it.  do you think legalizing other drugs will make
    it better?  how?  
    
    seems to me, it'll just make it easier and cheaper.  maybe that'll
    reduce drug-related crimes, but it sure won't reduce drug-dependency.
    
    tony	who_isn't_through_but_will_finish
    

    re. .50
    
    *I'm* not pretending to be objective.  Nor do I care what the level
    is set at, or whether impairment is from booze or medication.  And
    while accidents are caused by poor driving for other reasons, the
    number of fatal and near fatal accidents where alcohol is involved
    is sufficiently large as to warrant separate attention.
    
    If you're into denial enough to pretend you can self-monitor
    how drunk you are with a BAC of > .10, you've already decided that
    your right to drive sauced takes precidence over the safety of others;
    regardless of elaborate social engineering ideas about how to test
    for driving impairment the "right" way.
    
    
    

>    well, my kids are pretty young.  i try to teach them about drugs.
>    but what if some jerk approaches them at school and "convinces"
>    them to try anyway?  should he be "free" to do that?  should we
>    have no recourse against that?  isn't alcohol enough?  sure prohibition
>    didn't work...and look at the mess some of us (and our kids) are
>    in because of it.  do you think legalizing other drugs will make
>    it better?  how?  

 I've got younguns too (including two teenage girls). Decriminalizing drugs
is not the same as allowing people to contribute to the delinquency of a minor.
There are laws against providing children with alcohol- there's no reason
why similar laws couldn't be enacted for drugs (after all, alcohol is just a
subset of drugs).

 And obviously alcohol isn't enough. Otherwise nobody would do anything else.

 I think that decriminalizing drugs would have several beneficial effects.

 1. eliminate the biggest money supply for organized crime
 2. eliminate the biggest incentive for young people to deal (and drop out of 
school)
 3. Free up interdiction and correctional resources to be used for drug
education and rehabilitation/medical programs
 4. reduce the workload of police so they can concentrate on violent crime
 5. reduction of violent crime
    a. Did you know that after the repeal of prohibition, the murder rate
       in the United States dropped for 11 consecutive years? Look it up.
       Come to your own conclusion.
 6. Increase in tax income for two reasons
    a. no more laundered drug income (ie subject to income tax)
    b. sales tax revenue on distributed drugs
 7. Increases in both social programs and ecological programs with newly
    found money.

 In totality, this seems like the best (though non-obvious) solution for the
betterment of the entire country. It has been proved that education is far and
away more effective at reducing chemical abuse cases than is simple punishment.
By using current funds for education and rehabilitation, we will be getting
more bang to the buck. And more bucks.

re: Webb

>    *I'm* not pretending to be objective.  

 Good.

>Nor do I care what the level
>    is set at, or whether impairment is from booze or medication.

 No? Then why are you railing so loudly about people with .10 BAC but remain
silent about people using Comtrex, Motrin, Antihistamines, people that are
over-tired, etc? I want to measure impairment- no so much so that people can
drink and drive, but so that the law covers all types of impairment equally.
Right now it doesn't. And you seem to revel in that fact.

 Sincce you have a personal axe to grind, I will try to refrain from hammering
you on your suppositions of my personal feelings and activities, but you
really should try to be objective if you wish to be credible. Using emotional
laden terms like "right to drive sauced" detracts from the discussion at hand.

 I'm sorry that you were hit by a drunk driver. I have not been entirely spared
the detrimental effects of drunken driving fatalities, either. And to refer
to my proposals as "social engineering" is eminently laughable- I detest
social engineering (which is what I'm arguing against, if you're still 
listening).

 The Doctah

re .45

> Now the question is, how do we prevent people from driving dangerously?
> The first order of processing would be to say "If you have any amount of
> alcohol in your system, you may not drive."...

I would answer this question somewhat differently.  How do we prevent
people from driving dangerously (with respect to alcohol)?  By reaching
widespread agreement on what is acceptable and un-acceptable behavior
so practically everyone understands this.  Remember, law is unenforceable
without agreement (826.20).

I think the agreement should be:  drinking and driving is unacceptable
behavior.

> However, people who stopped drinking a relatively long time ago and who
> no longer appreciably undergo the physiological changes of the alcohol say
> "jeez- why should I not be able to drive because I had a drink a while ago?
> I'm no longer impaired."

I realize this is somewhat of a judgement call.  Since we're dealing with
human lives here, I think we should err on the side of safety.  The existing
law is extremely generous.  At .10 BAC, a person has been drinking a lot
relative to how soon they are driving.

>  So the next order of processing gives us "If you are impaired, you may not
> drive." This makes more sense.

I disagree.  This is not a sufficiently objective criteria.  As an engineer,
I've learned that setting vague hard to measure requirements is not very
affective for ensuring the quality of our products.

>> The more important question to me is what
>>is the reality, and how can we respond?  What works, and what doesn't.
>
>  So what you're saying is that we can engineer people to only do what we
> consider to be acceptable behavoirs by using laws to reduce the level of
> self determination of each individual? By placing increasing restrictions on
> free-will, we can prevent bad things from happening, thus precluding the
> necessity of holding someone (or group) responsible when things go awry?
> Sounds awful Machiavellian to me (unless I misunderstand).

That's not what I'm saying (at least I don't think so).  Remember, I don't
think stricter laws alone will solve the problem.  I think that as a society
we need to change our attitude (adopt a new ethic), so that people will
make the right choices for themselves (freedom justified by individual and
collective responsibility).  Enforcement is only affective when there
is widespread voluntary compliance.  To the extent that laws help educate
people as to what is acceptable versus un-acceptable behavior, I think
they help, but it's the educational aspect and building agreement that's
important, not the exact restriction itself (.05 versus .10 BAC for example).

This idea of society being somehow responsible, or society changing its
attitude may sound nebulous, but it isn't really that complicated.
Society is just made up of individuals.  Societal change cannot occur
without individual change occuring first.  The individual is the unit
of societal change.  To say society needs to accept some responsibility
and change its attitude, is really just saying that individuals like
you and me need to accept responsibility and change our attitude.

There's a tendency in groups for the group conscience to become so
fragmented as to be non-existant.  Everyone assumes somebody else
is responsible.  Just because a group is large, does not mean the
individuals in the group are not responsible for the behavior of
the group as a whole (thus my belief responsibility is not a zero
sum game).

- Peter

>I would answer this question somewhat differently.  How do we prevent
>people from driving dangerously (with respect to alcohol)? 

 I guess I don't understand why we should stop at alcohol. Given that only
half of all accidents involve drugs or alcohol, why should we not resolve to
prevent the other half as well? If, say, 2000 people per year die in auto
accidents, and we suddenly become able to stop all incidences of drunken
driving, 1000 people will still die. Is this not a problem? (Obviously, 
not all accidents occur as a result of impairment, but I think we should
try to reduce ALL impairment induced accidents, not just the politically
popular ones).

>Since we're dealing with
>Zhuman lives here, I think we should err on the side of safety.  

 Who would want to argue with that? But I guess that the thought of falsely
punishing people who are not impaired should be factored somewhat into our
decision to rely on a single data point almost exclusively for prima facie
evidence. Given that there is a non-zero amount of failure of the machine
to accurately analyze one's BAC (and the fact that the test can be rigged),
we must ask ourselves how many people we can falsely punish in the name of
increased public safety.

>The existing law is extremely generous. 

 If you look at it strictly from a point of view of drinking and driving, 
perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the fact that the almost
exclusive reliance on a single data point is inherently subject to inaccuracy
should not be lost, either. If cop A is out to get you, it is extremely easy
for him to get you in DWI- all he has to do is fix a breathalyzer test.
That's dangerous.

>As an engineer,
>I've learned that setting vague hard to measure requirements is not very
>affective for improving the quality of our products.

 As an engineer, surely you must know that to rely on voltage as the
sole indicator of power is an unsafe assumption. :-)

>There's a tendency in groups for the group conscience to become so
>fragmented as to be non-existant.  Everyone assumes somebody else
>is responsible.  Just because a group is large, does not mean the
>individuals in the group are not responsible for the behavior of
>the group as a whole (thus my belief responsibility is not a zero
>sum game).

 This is exactly what I wish to avoid; the diffusion of responsibility.

 I guess we agree in principle, but differ in means.

 The Doctah

"i have long held that in a society, the individual is often called on to defer
to the greater good of the whole."

The 'state' has has no rights to me unless I explicitly agree to give.  Me,
personally, not what some damned politician decided I should do.

"i view driving as a privilege extended to me by the state.  it is not my right"

That's odd.  Driving has been around alot longer then the government has.
I wonder what we did then?  People have the right to be left to their own
devices, and the responsibility for their own actions.  Sad to say, the
government too often supports the exact opposite.

"If cop A is out to get you, it is extremely easy for him to get you in DWI- all
he has to do is fix a breathalyzer test. That's dangerous."

I was once arrested for being drunk and disorderly.  I had not had one drop of
alcohol to drink in the past day.  I told the cop to give me a breathalyzer
test.  He said he didn't need to give me one.  The cop never showed up in court.
The case was dismissed.  You figure it out.  It *already* happens, folks.

Jim.

re .55

Ah, I'm starting to see your point now.  I was separating the idea that people
with a .10 BAC should not be allowed to drive, from the issue that the testing
process may not be fair (perhaps we've both shifted a little).

It does seem inconsistent to favor breath-alyzer testing for .10 BAC,
but to oppose urine testing for other drugs (for example).  I don't really
favor breath-alyzer testing.  The solution to our drug problem is education,
not testing.

Any form of drug testing which is not carefully controlled is subject
to human and machine errors.  People should have the right to dispute
the test results, and require reasonable verification.  The danger of
abuse is very real.  I think we'd have to look carefully at the specifics
to decide if .10 BAC testing is reliable and fairly applied.

> I guess I don't understand why we should stop at alcohol...
> I think we should try to reduce ALL impairment induced accidents,
> not just the politically popular ones).

Agreed.

>                                     But I guess that the thought of falsely
> punishing people who are not impaired should be factored somewhat into our
> decision to rely on a single data point almost exclusively for prima facie
> evidence.

I wouldn't want to falsely punish anyone who hasn't been drinking and
driving, but if the machine isn't quite accurate and reads .11 when the real
value is .09, that isn't very troublesome to me.  It's sort of like
complaining about a speeding ticket citing you for doing 25 mph over the
limit when you were only doing 21 over.

I think the agreement should be "drinking and driving", not
"subjectively/objectively impaired".  Laws restricting individual
behavior are more affective when they can be easily understood.

> This is exactly what I wish to avoid; the diffusion of responsibility.

I'm not arguing to reduce individual responsibility, quite the contrary.
I believe individuals are not only fully responsible for the direct affects
of their own actions, they should also be responsible for how their
actions influence others.

I think it is possible to have two or more people who are each fully
responsible for the same thing.  The fact that others are also responsible
does not dilute ones responsibility.

Responsible:
 1) Involving personal ability to act without superior authority.
 2) Being the source or cause of something.
 3) Able to be trusted or depended upon.
 4) Accountable.

If we believe in not blaming other people (no blame).
The first definition is significant.

- Peter

    I have a car which handles better and stops faster at twice the
    legal speed limit than most cars do at half the limit.  There is
    no way that I can sensibly argue that this fact gives me the right
    to drive at 200 km/h.
    
    Likewise, if you think you can drive a car with twice the legal
    limit of alcohol in your blood there is no way you can sensibly
    argue that this should give you the right to do so.
    
    Kris

>    I have a car which handles better and stops faster at twice the
>    legal speed limit than most cars do at half the limit.  There is
>    no way that I can sensibly argue that this fact gives me the right
>    to drive at 200 km/h.
 
    Perhaps someone else can. :-)
       
>    Likewise, if you think you can drive a car with twice the legal
>    limit of alcohol in your blood there is no way you can sensibly
>    argue that this should give you the right to do so.
    
    Actually, speed limits are another of my pet peeves. It is yet another
    case of "lowest common denominator" laws. I don't think it is
    reasonable to have a single set of laws that attempt to solve a complex
    problem in a simplex:-) way.
    
    The problem with driving is control of the automobile. When people
    lose control, accidents occur. With me so far?
    
    Speed limits attempt to address the problem by assuming that speed
    alone is the cause of accidents. It isn't. It is a combination of
    factors which are too numerous to bother to list. The idea is that by
    making speed limits, it will be easy to see who is in "control" of
    their vehicles by making a single observation. It just isn't that easy.
    
    I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why the law is the same
    for an 18 wheel truck that may weigh 30,000 lbs and a 2,000 lb car. The
    18 wheeler may be able to stop from 55 mph in 550 feet. The car may be
    able to stop from 75 in under 200 hundred feet. How can we rationalize
    the fact that it is infinitely safer to drive a sports car at 75 than
    it is to drive an 18 wheeler at 55? Should not the 18 wheelers have
    stricter laws governing speed?
    
    The Doctah

>The solution to our drug problem is education,
>not testing.                  
    
    Sing it from the highest rooftop!
    
>I wouldn't want to falsely punish anyone who hasn't been drinking and
>driving, but if the machine isn't quite accurate and reads .11 when the real
>value is .09, that isn't very troublesome to me.
    
    It is to me. What if your company makes you take a drug test, and
    you end up with a false positive for heroine? Would _that_ bother you?
    
>I think the agreement should be "drinking and driving", not
>"subjectively/objectively impaired".
    
    Here you and I differ. I think someone who is over-tired or using cold
    medecine or on pain killers should be equally responsible and
    punishable under the law as the guy who drinks. Their victims are no
    less dead, yet they are less guilty under current law. I don't buy it.
    
    The solution is for everyone to agree that driving when impaired is not
    only unacceptable, but that _not_ driving when impaired is very
    acceptable. How many people now would say "I shouldn't drive, the cols
    medecine is wiping me out." A few, but not a majority. If it became not
    only acceptable but commonplace for people to do so, we'd have far
    fewer problems with impaired driving- including drunk driving, because
    it wouldn't be un-macho to choose not to drive.
    
>I believe individuals are not only fully responsible for the direct affects
>of their own actions, they should also be responsible for how their
>actions influence others.
    
    I feel that holding people responsible for how their actions influence
    (encourage to act?) others is simply assigning blame. (My opinion).
    
    Thanks, Peter, for such a good discussion. It really has been
    enjoyable.
    
    The Doctah

re .60

Thanks, I'm enjoying the discussion too.

>>I think the agreement should be "drinking and driving", not
>>"subjectively/objectively impaired".
>    
>    Here you and I differ. I think someone who is over-tired or using cold
>    medecine or on pain killers should be equally responsible and
>    punishable under the law as the guy who drinks.

I think we're looking at this from different contexts.  I believe the
agreement WITH RESPECT TO ALCOHOL should be "drinking and driving is
unacceptable".  I also think we should agree that driving while impaired
is unacceptable.  They are not mutually exclusive, agreeing that drinking
and driving is unacceptable in no way justifies driving while impaired.

Are you saying that because restricting drinking and driving does
not account for other types of impairment, we should not restrict
drinking and driving?  That if we can't restrict all forms of impairment
"equally", we shouldn't restrict any?

If a person has been drinking a significant amount recently,
but they do not feel impaired, do you think they should be legally
permitted to drive?  [for the purpose of discussion, let's assume
significant amount means BAC between .05 and .15]


>>I believe individuals are not only fully responsible for the direct affects
>>of their own actions, they should also be responsible for how their
>>actions influence others.
>    
>    I feel that holding people responsible for how their actions influence
>    (encourage to act?) others is simply assigning blame. (My opinion).

I don't mean to "hold" anyone responsible.  I think we are responsible.

>> Responsible:
>>  1) Involving personal ability to act without superior authority.

I think this is different from blame.  When I say "You and I are partly
responsible for alcohol related traffic deaths in this country", I mean
you and I have a capacity to act in a way that will reduce such deaths
in the future.  The issue to me is how we choose to exercise that
capacity.  I don't think blame is productive, we can't change the past.

- Peter


To answer your other question:

>    It is to me. What if your company makes you take a drug test, and
>    you end up with a false positive for heroine? Would _that_ bother you?

Yes it would bother me, but I see a difference here.

I was describing a situation where the machine was perhaps only accurate
to within 10%.  To me, the difference between 21 mph over the speed limit
and 25 mph over is not that important.  The person was way over and clearly
speeding.  Now if we measure an object that is not moving at all, and it
reads 15 mph over the speed limit, that's a problem :-)

For each type of testing proposed, I think we have to look carefully
at the reliability of the testing process/procedures, and whether the
testing inpinges on other rights.

[If it's okay with you, let's focus on blame and responsibility here.
The merits of drug testing is probably better left to another forum.]

    .53 Levesque
    
    >Sincce you have a personal axe to grind, I will try to refrain from hammering
>you on your suppositions of my personal feelings and activities, but you
>really should try to be objective if you wish to be credible. Using emotional
>laden terms like "right to drive sauced" detracts from the discussion at hand.
    
    Point made... however, I think you are fooling yourself to some
    degree if you think that you are being "objective."  You have a
    personal axe to grind as well -- at least at the level of "I am
    unwilling to submit myself to the judgement of a fallible test which
    I don't see as doing the necessary job, especially since it only
    attempts to evaluate one possible source of impairment.  I know
    when I am impaired and I will make that decision."
    
    You are asserting your right to decide when to drive and how to
    drive because the laws "are for the lowest common denominator."
    In effect, what you are saying is that you are better than all these
    other idiots and you should not be subject to a law you find
    objectionable.
    
    Maybe you aren't the problem... but that attitude is just what leads
    to the macho decisions by inebriated people to drive... a decision
    that you say you decry.
    
    Until social disapproval of such behavior has a much wider impact,
    so that the kind of thing that happened to me no longer happens,
    I'm quite prepared to accept even a flawed mechanism for getting
    some of the problems off the road.  If you can make the process
    you have suggested both cheap and effective and get it adopted,
    fine.  But in the meanwhile you might consider the extent to which
    your promotion of your right to decide supports behavior which does
    threaten and sometimes hurt others.
    
    Personally, I would prefer a system that seriously consequated
    destructive behavior consistently and quickly and really depended
    on people to take responsibility for themselves... and in that sense
    we may be philosophically closer than was obvious... but in the
    meantime, I'll take the present DWI laws as better than the way
    things were.
    
    R.
    

    The claim is as silly as anyone who claims that they can operate
    a car as well with a BAC above the legal limit than they can stone
    sober.  It was given for illustrative purposes only, Mike, not as
    claim to truth.
    
    I do, however, feel safer driving my car at 120 than I do driving a '73
    Pinto with unaligned tires, faulty breaks, a hole in the floor, a leaky
    gas tank, no rear view mirror and no break lights at any speed. 
    
    Kris

>Are you saying that because restricting drinking and driving does
>not account for other types of impairment, we should not restrict
>drinking and driving?  
    
    No. I'm saying if we are going to restrict drinking and driving,
    we should do it in a manner consistent with an overall strategy to
    prevent impaired driving, not as a 'simple solution.'
    
>    That if we can't restrict all forms of impairment
>"equally", we shouldn't restrict any?
    
    No. But we shouldn't scapegoat any single aspect of driving to the
    exclusion of others. And we shouldn't rely wholly upon a single,
    unreliable data point.
    
>If a person has been drinking a significant amount recently,
>but they do not feel impaired, do you think they should be legally
>permitted to drive?
    
    They way you ask that question makes it hard to answer. I think that
    ability to drive should be contingent upon more than simple BAC
    content. I don't think that BAC should be the sole determinant of
    impairment. Saturday night, we drove an hour to go to a restaurant. I
    had two drinks in the restaurant. I was probably under .10, but I was
    so bloated from indulging wickedly in Kung Pao Three Delights and
    Shrimp Moo Shi, I had my wife drive. So I would have been legal, but
    my body told me not to drive. 
    
    Bottom line- BAC (especially measured by a breathalyzer) does not tell
    the whole story and should not be the sole consideration of impairment.
    
    The Doctah

>    Point made... however, I think you are fooling yourself to some
>    degree if you think that you are being "objective."  You have a
>    personal axe to grind as well 
    
    I suppose you could say fairness and rationality in traffic laws is my
    "axe to grind" in this context, but I think it would tend to cloud 
    judgement less than being the victim of a drunk driving accident.
    
>    In effect, what you are saying is that you are better than all these
>    other idiots and you should not be subject to a law you find
>    objectionable.
    
    Nope. Point missed. I'm saying that the law is flawed because it
    attempts a band-aid fix on a broken bone.
    
>    Until social disapproval of such behavior has a much wider impact,
>    so that the kind of thing that happened to me no longer happens,
>    I'm quite prepared to accept even a flawed mechanism for getting
>    some of the problems off the road. 
    
    I am quite prepared to complain about the flaws in the mechanism.
    
    Not only do we have to make deciding to drive when impaired socially
    unacceptable, we also have to make deciding NOT to drive because one
    FEELS impaired socially acceptable and respected.
    
    The Doctah

    I think the thing that bothers me the most is the assumption that
    someone who has been drinking enough to approach .10 BAC (or its
    Breathalyzer equivalent) has the capacity to judge his/her ability to
    drive.
    
    This BAC is not reached with one or two beers -- it requires three or
    four within a few hours (your mileage will vary, depending on
    weight/height, etc.)
    
    My sources (NJ State Police) tell me that several functions necessary
    for top-quality driving (coordination, balance, depth perception,
    reaction time, etc.) all begin to deteriorate at BAC levels well below 
    .10 BAC.  They go on to say that these functions deteriorate regardless
    of how impaired the drinker feels (or doesn't feel).
    
    I contend that anyone who has been drinking enough to even approach
    this BAC level is too impaired to drive.
    
    >Not only do we have to make deciding to drive when impaired socially
    >unacceptable, we also have to make deciding NOT to drive because one
    >FEELS impaired socially acceptable and respected.
    
    100% complete and total agreement.
    
    (An earlier contention stated that chronic alcoholics have the ability
    to drive while drunk.  Yes, they do -- but to imply that they can do it
    safely or well is untrue.  Active alcoholics do drive while drunk, but
    they are still drunk, and drive while impaired.)
    
    I have a more basic question to ask:  why is this so important to you?
    This seems to me to go beyond simple fairness -- what's really the
    point?
    
    					andrew       

>    I think the thing that bothers me the most is the assumption that
>    someone who has been drinking enough to approach .10 BAC (or its
>    Breathalyzer equivalent) has the capacity to judge his/her ability to
>    drive.
    
    I think what bothers me most is that people automatically assume that
    _they_ are best able to dictate when I am fit/unfit to drive. How many
    people would break the law if, because some people are impaired after
    taking cold medicine, driving under the influence of cold medicine
    became a crime? If cold medicine isn't bad enough, what about children?
    How many times have you seen near and actual accidents caused because
    of a parent paying more attention to Johnny getting ketchup on the seat
    than the red light 2 car lengths away?
    
    My personal favorites are women applying mascara on the highway and
    people reading the paper (or a book) while driving. Why is there no
    universal call to outlaw these demonstrably hazardous practices?
    
    I think that the thing to do is to make the penalties very harsh for
    people who screw up, and to not differentiate between causes of
    impairment. When you get behind the wheel, you are responsible for what
    happens as a result of your driving. If you jump the sidewalk and knock
    down a nun, it should be your ass, whether you had a beer or a Comtrex.
    
>    I have a more basic question to ask:  why is this so important to you?
    
    Oh. Well this isn't the end all of my life. It's just one example of
    how rights and responsibilities are continually eroded in the grand
    scheme to engineer behavior. I have just used this as a single example,
    which was picked up on and debated. I would have been content to keep
    the discussion on a more abstract level, as I feel very strongly about
    the concepts of personal freedom and responsibility. 
    
    The Doctah

>    My personal favorites are women applying mascara on the highway and
>    people reading the paper (or a book) while driving. Why is there no
>    universal call to outlaw these demonstrably hazardous practices?
    
    My personal "favorite" is the men who shave with the razor in one
    hand and the mirror propped on the steering wheel.  You can't
    drive south on Rt. 3 in the morning rush hour without ducking at
    least one of them . . .
    
    --bonnie

>                  -< I wish beards would come back in style >-


    	You mean they're NOT?!  Gads, what's this stuff doing on my face
    then?!  ;-)


>    My personal "favorite" is the men who shave with the razor in one
>    hand and the mirror propped on the steering wheel.  You can't
>    drive south on Rt. 3 in the morning rush hour without ducking at
>    least one of them . . .
    

    	I've never seen this but wouldn't doubt it exists.  Women doing
    makeup I *have* seen.  However, I saw the height of gall when I saw a
    bumper sticker recently that went something like:  "Warning:  driver
    applies makeup in mirror"!!!  *I* would not be proud of that fact!


    Brian

    As it happens, things like that (shaving, applying make-up, playing
    mah jhong, etc.) are illegal as well as being dangerous driving
    practices.  However, they're also much more difficult to prove
    legally.  One thing that field sobriety, Breath-alyzer, and blood-
    alcohol/drug tests have in their favor is that they hold up a lot
    better in court than an assertion that an accident was caused by
    someone shaving or applying make-up.  While I agree that the ".10
    law" is arbitrary and therefore somewhat unfair, I vastly prefer it
    to no such law.  Among other things, it allows for some chance of
    intervention before disaster strikes; if I'm caught at a roadblock,
    I can be removed from the road before I demonstrate my diminished
    capacity in a lethal fashion.
    
    Steve

>>If a person has been drinking a significant amount recently,
>>but they do not feel impaired, do you think they should be legally
>>permitted to drive?
>    
>    The way you ask that question makes it hard to answer. I think that
>    ability to drive should be contingent upon more than simple BAC
>    content.

My intent was to isolate where we disagree to help me understand what
you're seeing that I'm not.  Notice I didn't ask whether such a person
is "able" to drive safely, but whether they should be "legally permitted
to drive".

I realize we can't legislate what goes on in peoples heads, but if through
talking to our friends and neighbors, and publicizing the law we can reach
widespread agreement that drinking and driving is unacceptable behavior,
even if you don't feel impaired after having only a few drinks, this will
reduce alcohol related traffic deaths.

To that extent, I think we have a capacity to act, which makes us
"responsible".  Your decision not to drive home Saturday night was
a good example of responsible behavior.  That's exactly the type of
example we need more people to set.

>    Bottom line- BAC (especially measured by a breathalyzer) does not tell
>    the whole story and should not be the sole consideration of impairment.

Agreed.  I think you've argued quite persuasively that people can be impaired
for reasons besides alcohol, and at alcohol levels well below .10 BAC.
People can also be "relatively" un-impaired at higher BAC levels.

No question the law could be improved.

If you can convince me that BAC or Breathalyzer testing is not a reliable
indicator of whether a person has been drinking recently, I'd agree we
should eliminate that type of testing as well.

Which takes us back to the broader question:

Is "No drinking and driving" a mommy law, or an agreement to protect
the public's safety?

- Peter

I hate prevention laws, and 'for your own good' laws in general.  However, I'd
sit still for a drinking & driving law a lot easier then I'd sit still for a
seatbelt law.

People act like the breathalyzer test is the best test possible.  It's not. 
It's not even in the top half.  I believe that it is possible to have a simple
five minute test that tests the general motor skills needed for driving on a
calibrated scale. This would cover impaired driving no matter the source, and
could be used at a drivers test to get the people off the road who are not safe
at any time.

Jim.

                 3-6 oz of liquor consumed = .05-.10% BAC.  "This causes
    exaggerated emotion and behavior--less concern, mental relaxation.
    Decrease in finer skills of coordination."
    
         "The House Delegates of the American Medical Association has
    recommended that a blood alcohol level of 0.10%(100mgm/100ml)or
    more be considered as rendering the person too intoxicated to drive.
    Leves as low as .05% (50 mgm/100ml)may seriously impair the driving
    skills of *a number of persons*.  Levels below .05% are *ordinarily*
    regarded as inconsequential; as they increase to .10%, proportionately
    *more* persons are affected adversely; and as they reach that point
    or exceed it, the degree of intoxication is such that the driving
    skills of *everyone* are dangerously altered."
    
                (Source): American Medical Association, Fall 1967
    
         The point being, that it is not only a law, but it was confirmed
    by much research by the medical community.
         I also understand the concern that their are many more types
    of dangerous activities a person can engage in while driving, but
    there is increasing awareness of many of these (i.e. prescription
    drugs, over the counter remedies), and there will, *hopefully*,
    be more consistent consequences in the future.  However, I like
    to keep it simple for the time being, I try not to break the law's
    *To The Best of My Ability*
    
         Bruce  

    
    
    If its such a good idea to "prevent" the action of driving under the
    infuence, then just station cops outside of bars and arrest people who
    leave the bar and are going to drive.
    
    ed

    re: .79
    
    Perhaps I was unclear in my reply which was in response to Jim's
    suggestion of a motor skills test.  What I was trying to indicate
    was that motor skills are only a part of safe driving skills.
    Another such skill is good judgment which is frequently impaired
    by chemicals.  Yes, there are speed laws, but too often the 
    intoxicated driver believes (s)he can operate safely outside
    those laws.  A simple motor skills test cannot test judgement.
    
    Steve

>Is "No drinking and driving" a mommy law, or an agreement to protect
>the public's safety?
    
    Both, but more an agreement to protect public safety. It is a matter of
    taking steps before something actually happens, but it also recognizes
    that certain behaviors are bound to raise the risks for bystanders.
    Most laws in this country are reactive, ie, after you kill someone,
    then you get punished. DWI laws are proactive, ie BEFORE you do
    something that might hurt someone else, you get punished. I have mixed
    emotions about this because a number of people who wouldn't do
    something to hurt someone else are punished along with those who would,
    due, primarily, to the testing mechanism. On the other hand, having
    lost people I love to drunk drivers, I would definitely like to see the
    number of drunk drivers reduced. So I'm in a philosophical quandary- to
    follow my general philosophy to its logical conclusion, there would be
    no proactive laws. But to ignore the carnage would be foolhardy. So in
    the end, some sort of compromise must occur that will both maximize the
    safety of bystanders while maximizing the freedom to control one's own
    life. Somewhere under these curves is the optimum point where both of
    these slightly contradictory criteria are maximized. We are not there
    yet.
    
    The Doctah

         This reminds me of the smoking quandry.  The innocent bystanders'
    point of view is "Does that person have the RIGHT to endanger me in 
    order to enjoy his freedoms?" in both cases.
    
                                    Greg

    I see a difference there. A smoker directly affects you with her smoke.
    A car that drives by doesn't.
    
    The Doctah

>        I see a difference there. A smoker directly affects you with her smoke.

    Unless the smoke blows by you.

>        A car that drives by doesn't.
    
    Unless the car is oncoming at 120 in your lane.
    
    K

I feel that it is possible to test a sense of judgement as well.

Maybe the cops should use racecar videogames as tests?  Heck, it'd at least be
more fun!

There is a difference between preventitive laws and victimless crime laws. A
preventitive law attempts to prevent a problem from happening.  In my mind,
these laws are only justified when the loss is not catastrophic if then. A drunk
driving law, I can live with, a law to prevent a theft would not be justifiable. 
Laws regarding victimless crimes should not exist period.

Jim.

re:                    <<< Note 826.84 by BRADOR::HATASHITA >>>
                               -< No Difference >-

>>        I see a difference there. A smoker directly affects you with her smoke.

>    Unless the smoke blows by you.

>>        A car that drives by doesn't.
    
>    Unless the car is oncoming at 120 in your lane.
    
    Let's see now. If we took everybody who ever smoked in your proximity
    and checked to see if their smoke blew by you, what do you think we'd
    get as a percentage? 50%? 75%?
    
    Now take everybody who ever had a beer and drove. What percent ever
    drove 120 in your lane? .0000000x%?
    
    I guess you are right. No difference.
    
    The Doctah

    re .86
    
    I don't personally know anyone who has conracted emphesema or lung
    cancer from being close to a smoker.
    
    I personally knew three people who have died in auto accidents in
    which alcohol was attributed as being a factor in the accident.
    They are the only three people I know who have died in traffic
    accidents.   That's 100%.
    
    You don't believe it's fair that the government should take such
    a narrow view on the subject and place accountability on a person
    who drinks and drives because of the existence of other factors.
    
    I, on the other hand, would rather see the government impose heavier
    penalties for offenders of the existing law and see the law become
    stricter in terms of legal blood alcohol content than to see another
    innocent person's life terminated because of a drunk driver.
    
    Mike's right, Doctah, but you're not the only one wasting his time.
    
    Kris

         The point of the matter is that both the drunk driver and the
    inconsiderate smoker are willing to risk other people's lives in order 
    to indulge in their chosen hobby.
    
         Is the principle of "One person's rights end where another
    person's rights begin" totally incorrect?
    
                                      Greg  

> ...a law to prevent a theft would not be justifiable. 
> Laws regarding victimless crimes should not exist period.

>         Is the principle of "One person's rights end where another
>    person's rights begin" totally incorrect?

No, it's not incorrect, but it's no longer sufficient as a guide
to personal and group behavior.

The "rights" or freedom being discussed here is usually interpreted
to mean the right to be left alone by others, not having other people's
values, ideas, or styles of life forced upon one, being free of arbitrary
authority in work, family, and political life.

If the entire social world is made up of individuals, each endowed with the
right to be free of others' demands, it becomes hard to forge bonds of
attachment to, or cooperation with, other people, since such bonds would
imply obligations that necessarily impinge on one's freedom.

Today we live in a truely interdependent world, each of us dependent
on vast numbers of others for our survival.  It is no longer sufficient
to evaluate our actions in the context of how they immediately affect
someone else, we must now learn to see them in the context of how they
affect the well being of the whole.

The amount of garbage we produce, or the amount of energy we consume
in a day doesn't directly hurt anyone, but it's having a devastating
effect on the life support system of our planet.

Survival is the goal of all life.  If we are to survive as a species,
our concept of responsibility to each other, and to life itself
must change.

- Peter

    >The "rights" of freedom being discussed here is usually interpreted
    >to mean the right to be left alone...
    
         I believe you are putting it a bit too mildly.  It is probably
    more accurately described as the right to not have one's life put in
    jeopardy unnecessarily.
    
                                     Greg

"No, it's not incorrect, but it's no longer sufficient as a guide to personal
and group behavior."

I agree, but for different reasons.  Rights are not a sufficient guide to
behavior because you may have a right to do something which is stupid.  You may
also have a right to do something which is morally/ethically wrong.  The
difference with having the right to those actions, is that no one can force to
do/no them.  Suicide is a good example.  You may have a right to your own life,
in a human rights context, but that doesn't prevent it from being usually stupid
or morally wrong.

"If the entire social world is made up of individuals, each endowed with the
right to be free of others' demands, it becomes hard to forge bonds of
attachment to, or cooperation with, other people, since such bonds would imply
obligations that necessarily impinge on one's freedom."

I disagree.  The difference between what you see, and I see, I believe, is that
you believe that these ''obligations'' need to be enforced by outside people. I
believe that people can enter ''obligations'' freely, and should not have
''obligations'' forced onto them.  Any ''obligations'' which need to be enforced
other then the responsibility for one's own actions are immoral.

There is also the counterpart of freedom: responsibility.  If you want to have
freedom to determine your own actions, you have to be responsible for the
consequenses of your actions.  This means if you make a mess, you have to clean
it up.  Perhaps if you don't clean up your mess, you lose your right to possibly
make a mess.

"Today we live in a truely interdependent world, each of us dependent on vast
numbers of others for our survival.  It is no longer sufficient to evaluate our
actions in the context of how they immediately affect someone else, we must now
learn to see them in the context of how they affect the well being of the
whole."

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong.  I agree with your words, but I can't help
feeling that you're also saying that I responsible for the actions of some other
idiot, and that I'm responsible for enforcing ''obligations'' on them whether I
want to or not.  Sorry, I've got other things to do with my life.

"The amount of garbage we produce, or the amount of energy we consume in a day
doesn't directly hurt anyone, but it's having a devastating effect on the life
support system of our planet."

This falls under the category of being responsible for your own mess.

Jim.

> I disagree.  The difference between what you see, and I see, I believe, is
> that you believe that these ''obligations'' need to be enforced by outside
> people.

Not at all.  I'm not advocating "enforcement".  My intent is to persuade,
to show by force of reason that we should voluntarily accept certain
obligations to each other.  Here I was trying to show that our belief
in "freedom", when taken to the extreme, undermines the commitments we
make to each other.

> Any ''obligations'' which need to be enforced other then the
> responsibility for one's own actions are immoral.

Agreed.  The question is, what constitutes responsibility for one's
own actions?

> ...but I can't help feeling that you're also saying that I responsible for
> the actions of some other idiot, and that I'm responsible for enforcing
> ''obligations'' on them whether I want to or not.

Not exactly, let me see if I can explain it another way more clearly.
Consider the question:  Who is responsible for maintaining the
habitability of our planet?

The answer is we are, but what does this responsibility include?
Is it enough to say:

  "I won't do X because I see it's bad for the planet, but
   if somebody else is doing X, that's their responsibility."

or should we also say:

  "If I see somebody else doing X, I will try to show them (with a
   spirit of goodwill) what I see about X that makes it bad, in the
   hope of persuading them to stop doing X, or determining that I was
   mistaken and X is not harmful in the way I thought."

I think we have the capacity to do both.  The later is what I meant
by a new "concept of responsibility to each other".  Not to force others
(excessive use of force is part of the problem), but to help each other
find answers that work.

- Peter

"My intent is to persuade, to show by force of reason that we should voluntarily
accept certain obligations to each other."

?Force? of reason?  Somehow I keep thinking that you would use force if reason
failed.

"Here I was trying to show that our belief in "freedom", when taken to the
extreme, undermines the commitments we make to each other."

This is a contradiction.  I think you have the cart before the horse.  If you
have an extreme belief in freedom, you won't have any commitments.  Nor should
you be forced to do any more then be responsible for your own actions.

"Who is responsible for maintaining the habitability of our planet?"

Each person is responsible for their contribution if any to the habitability of
our planet.  If something is 'bad for the planet' then it must also be bad for
someone particularly, bad enough for someone to raise a fuss, bad enough to
convince an objective court that the prepetrator must be held responsible for
the outcome of their actions.  You don't have to prove that it's harmfull, even.
It's sufficient to demand that your results be acceptable to your neighbors, or
you keep the problem to yourself.  And if it gets away from you, you will be
liable.  Is this really that hard to understand?

Convince them that their actions will have ill consequences if you can, but
leave the force out of it.

Jim.

    re .94
    
>        The "even if just one life is saved" argument is old and flawed.
    
    Where's the flaw?
    
>        I would rather see more attention paid to the more serious crimes,
>        like assault, rape, and robbery, than to DWI, no accident
>        resulting.
    
    Of course, once the resulting accident occurs it's too late.  
    
    In all the crimes you've listed, Mike, an innocent gets victimized by
    another individuals actions.  I maintain that there is no fundamental
    difference in whether the other individual actions are based on
    greed; as in the case of robbery, sociopathic mentality; as in the
    case of assault or rape, or chronic stupidity; as in the case of
    drunken drivers.
    
    Airlines do not permit their pilots to fly drunk.  Hospitals and the
    press would crucify a surgeon who performed surgery while drunk.
    Same deal for bus drivers, fire fighters, police officers and oil
    tanker captains.  The same should apply to drivers in the general
    population. 
    
    Kris

         It would be more accurate to compare the drunk driver to someone
    firing a gun indiscriminately than to compare him to someone carrying 
    a weapon.
    
                                       Greg

         Mike, think of the direct correlations.  The gun and the car being
    the weapons, the sober driver would be simply carrying the gun.  The
    drunk driver, since he is endangering the lives of those around him,
    would be more like the person firing indiscriminantly.  The drunk
    driver and the reckless shooter have *A CHANCE* of not hitting anyone,
    but they are both a danger to society.
    
                                      Greg

    You are using the term "drunk." I assume you mean 'a person who has
    consumed sufficient alcohol to render the safe conduction of an
    automobile extremely unlikely.' Given that, obviously, nobody wants
    that type of driver on the street. On the other hand, there is
    certainly an area that contains drivers who have had _something_ to
    drink, but are not dangerous. And therein the problem lies. Demarcating
    the line between having had something to drink and having had too much
    to drink is a difficult problem (which we've tried to address for the
    last 90 or so replies).
    
    re: Kris
    
    Where is the flaw in "if it only saves one life?" Well, you tell me.
    
    If you accept IIOSOL as justification for increased regulation, who
    would claim that reducing the speed limit to 5 mph would not save
    THOUSANDS of lives each year? And who would claim that banning all
    dangerous activities like skiing, handgliding, diving, boating etc
    would not save even more lives? The problem with IIOSOL is that it is
    outrageously simplistic when carried to its logical conclusion (and
    don't think it wouldn't be).
    
    The Doctah

         OK, I'll grant you that.  The person referred to might have had
    drinks, but not be drunk in the classical sense.  The objections are to
    standardized tests to determine their ability to operate a vehicle
    safely.  My opinion has been that to truely determine someone's motor
    skill and control level, it would take an unacceptable amount of effort
    and expense.  The standardized tests are the only practical way of
    determining whether or not a driver is a danger to others.
    
         I can't imagine any further arguments which would convince either
    side to agree with the other.  Beyond that, the matter of whether or
    not anyone has a right which says that they may use their own judgement 
    as to whether or not they may endanger my life or those of my loved
    ones has not been proven.  Especially, since that person may have
    diminished capacity to even make a judgement decision in whatever level
    of inebriation he may be in.
    
         A law-of-the-jungle solution might be to allow anyone to drive in
    any state of drunkeness, and then have a shoot-on-sight policy in the
    case where ANY accident has taken place, whether or not another person 
    was killed.  This would insure that only those who were CERTAIN of
    their abilities would drink and drive.  
    
                                      Greg

    Re: .109
    
         So, you're only objecting to the stop-everyone roadblocks?
    
                                     Greg

         Even if only those who drove erratically were stopped, taking each
    one in to the station and subjecting them to the the battery of tests 
    suggested earlier would still cost a fortune to taxpayers.  It is
    completely impractical to forgo the stadardized tests which most
    everyone is aware of and can work to avoid violation.
    
                                       Greg

         OK, I was on-line there for a moment, then you lost me.  By saying
    that there are existing laws for erratic driving, I thought you were
    saying that DWI/DUI laws should not exist.  When you mention urine
    testing, are we not going back to the issue of whether or not the
    driver is drunk, rather than whether or not he can drive?
    
                                        Greg

         Yow, I was so caught-up in this chat that I didn't notice that it 
    was a tangent.  I even forgot which conference I was in.  Anyway, it is
    time for me to bail out before it becomes a Turbo-Tangent.  Adios.
    
                                         Greg

"I maintain that there is no fundamental difference in whether the other
individual actions are based on greed; as in the case of robbery, sociopathic
mentality; as in the case of assault or rape, or chronic stupidity; as in the
case of drunken drivers."

Then why try to 'prevent' drunk driving accidents in ways that you wouldn't try
to 'prevent' other crimes?

"Why Mike?  Using your line of reasoning, there should be no sanctions against a
surgeon who operates drunk without mishap or a pilot who  lands without incident
despite being stoned."

A Pilot etc, is being paid to be responsible for safely fullfilling their duty.
A recreational driver is not.

Greg, I think you've got a very good comparison...

"Even if only those who drove erratically were stopped, taking each one in to
the station and subjecting them to the the battery of tests  suggested earlier
would still cost a fortune to taxpayers."

I don't believe that such is necessary.  I'm sure that an on the spot 5-10
minute test is possible.  For some reason, however, people tend to shie away
from such an idea.

Jim.

Folks...

I've discussed this with my co-moderators and those who have expressed
an opinion have agreed that this note has strayed far beyond the bounds of
the topic of human relations.  Activity seems to have died down lately,
so I'm going to take this opportunity to ask people that if they want to
continue this discussion that they do so by MAIL or perhaps in PEAR::SOAPBOX.

If you have questions about this decision, please contact me by mail.

				Steve