NHL: Around the League 50

[hawksrule]

This is just more of your holier than thou, moral superiority shtick you love to whip out every once in a while. Alcohol and drug impairment is based on a multitude of physiological factors that you obviously don't have the slightest comprehension of. Alcohol and drug tolerance is affected by psychological, genetic, and behavioral factors, among others. The brain is an incredibly complex thing that works differently for every person on the planet.

For instance, I can pop 2-3 vicodin and have absolutely ZERO effects when it comes to alertness, drowsiness, sobriety, pain relief, etc. They don't do anything for me, and never have. No, I was never a habitual vicodin user. I have taken them 3-4 times in my lifetime due to injuries, and thrown them away every time, as they are useless. Ibuprofen, on the other hand, is a life saver...

A regular marijuana user can have "excessive" amounts of THC in their system by normal standards, and be completely sober. When I pop edibles, 5mg is enough for me. I know regular users than need 4-5 times that amount to get high.

Should I continue?

If your stance is that you should never drive with any amount of alcohol in your system, because any impairment while driving is too much, then I'm sure you would have no problem revoking the license of anyone over, say, 60? Because, you know, cognitive and motor skill decline is 100% a factor as you age, and those older drivers are operating their vehicles much more dangerously than someone in their physical and mental prime. Right?

Wow, what a deep post. Almost mistook you for a neurologist, it was so detailed and complex.

Moral superiority for being against drinking and driving? Lol.

 

[hawksrule]

And lol @ no correlation between bac and impairment. Super dopey thing to say.

 

[Pez68]

Wow, what a deep post. Almost mistook you for a neurologist, it was so detailed and complex.

Moral superiority for being against drinking and driving? Lol.

Yes, it's moral superiority. Like this post:

It’s not absurd at all. Take an Uber or get a friend to drive you home from the bar.

Or this one:

Crazy thought, how about not driving at all impaired and getting an Uber instead. Or socialize without drinking. Or get a ride from a friend. There are so many options!

Now we can look at your contradictory positions.

And lol @ no correlation between bac and impairment. Super dopey thing to say.

Nobody is saying there's no correlation between BAC and impairment. What's being said is, BAC is not a reliable indicator of impairment. Which, YOU, YOURSELF, SAID.

What you said is plainly wrong. One can be convicted of impaired driving below .08. The notion that an unidentified “they” have determined “you’re not impaired” there is silly.

Alcohol not only makes people bad drivers, it makes people bad judges of whether they’re suitable to drive.

When we go out we usually Uber or subway. If we’re driving, one of us (or both) don’t drink. Drinking really isn’t important, and it’s really easy to do without having to get behind the wheel.

What’s silly is acting as if the legal limit is the determinant of whether one is impaired. The legal limit used to be .15. Doesn’t make .14 safe. See how quickly your argument falls apart?

So you can be impaired when below the legal limit, but you can't have a BAC above whatever arbitrary limit is set by whatever government officials, and not be impaired? How does that make any f***ing sense? Do you even play this logic out in your head?

 

[Pez68]

P.S. Here's some science for you:

The Molecular Basis of Tolerance - PMC

Tolerance is defined as the diminished response to alcohol or other drugs over the course of repeated or prolonged exposure. This mechanism allows physiological processes to achieve stability in a constantly changing environment. The onset of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Multigenerational and Transgenerational Inheritance of Drug Exposure: The effects of alcohol, opiates, cocaine, marijuana, and nicotine - PMC

Familial inheritance of drug abuse is composed of both genetic and environmental factors. Additionally, epigenetic transgenerational inheritance may provide a means by which parental drug use can influence several generations of offspring. Recent ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Kalter: UMass study shows dads who smoke may pass drug tolerance on to kids

Men who smoke cigarettes could be putting their future children at risk by building up an inherited tolerance to drugs, making doctors question whether their offspring could be less responsive to o…

www.bostonherald.com

The TLDR version? Regular drug and alcohol use builds tolerance. Tolerance and resistance to the effects of drugs and alcohol, can also be INHERITED.

 

[Giovi]

You continue to miss the point as much as a point can possibly be missed.

There's a point being missed, but I don't think it's by me. I'm about done here.

 

[jls24]

So what's happening around the league?

 

[hawksrule]

Yes, it's moral superiority. Like this post:

Or this one:



Now we can look at your contradictory positions.



Nobody is saying there's no correlation between BAC and impairment. What's being said is, BAC is not a reliable indicator of impairment. Which, YOU, YOURSELF, SAID.





So you can be impaired when below the legal limit, but you can't have a BAC above whatever arbitrary limit is set by whatever government officials, and not be impaired? How does that make any f***ing sense? Do you even play this logic out in your head?

Look, as a goodwill gesture I’m trying to be nice here, because even though you sometimes act dopey like you are now, you generally are capable of rational discourse.

In this very post you denied disputing a correlation between bac and impairment. Yet in your very first post to this discussion - the one I responded to that sent you spiraling down this weird vortex - you claimed bac to be “nonsensical” as a measure of impairment. Pick a side.

Your core argument appears to be that different people are different. Well, no shit. It’s also true that people are terrible judges of their own impairment. It’s also true that countries with .05 have fewer drunk driving deaths than those with .08.

So maybe you’re some kind of Superman who can load up on Vicodin and Xanax and beer, and I’m sure you are the type who believes he’s a better driver in that condition than most other people are sober, as you also said in your initial post. As ridiculous and silly as that notion is, I don’t doubt the authenticity of your hubris. But even if we were to take your delusions at face value, it’s an ultra-weak vantage point from which to assert drinking/driving protocol for the masses.

 

[Pez68]

Look, as a goodwill gesture I’m trying to be nice here, because even though you sometimes act dopey like you are now, you generally are capable of rational discourse.

In this very post you denied disputing a correlation between bac and impairment. Yet in your very first post to this discussion - the one I responded to that sent you spiraling down this weird vortex - you claimed bac to be “nonsensical” as a measure of impairment. Pick a side.

Your core argument appears to be that different people are different. Well, no shit. It’s also true that people are terrible judges of their own impairment. It’s also true that countries with .05 have fewer drunk driving deaths than those with .08.

So maybe you’re some kind of Superman who can load up on Vicodin and Xanax and beer, and I’m sure you are the type who believes he’s a better driver in that condition than most other people are sober, as you also said in your initial post. As ridiculous and silly as that notion is, I don’t doubt the authenticity of your hubris. But even if we were to take your delusions at face value, it’s an ultra-weak vantage point from which to assert drinking/driving protocol for the masses.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never denied a corellation between BAC and impairment. The point is that using only BAC(especially a BAC as low as .02) as an indicator of impairment, as you did, and continue to do, is f***ing nonsensical. For the myriad of scientific reasons out there. And you f***ing agreed with that multiple times. Well, as long as it supports your argument that you can be under the legal limit, and still impaired, but not over the legal limit, and not impaired... Which is just astounding logic.

I'm done. I've read enough of your logically contradictory nonsense over the years to know this is just another episode.

 

[Styles]

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

"I'm done" coming from Pez or his brother always makes me chuckle. Probably not.

 

[BLKHKhockey]

Never understood arguing with strangers over the internet.

How's that for moral superiority.

 

[hawksrule]

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never denied a corellation between BAC and impairment. The point is that using only BAC(especially a BAC as low as .02) as an indicator of impairment, as you did, and continue to do, is f***ing nonsensical. For the myriad of scientific reasons out there. And you f***ing agreed with that multiple times. Well, as long as it supports your argument that you can be under the legal limit, and still impaired, but not over the legal limit, and not impaired... Which is just astounding logic.

I'm done. I've read enough of your logically contradictory nonsense over the years to know this is just another episode.

Yawn. You haven’t refuted a thing I’ve said, and are pathetically clinging to your “not every human is identical” non-sequitur as if it’s relevant or interesting, despite it being neither.

 

[x Tame Impala]

It’s like a thanksgiving dinner up in here

I didn’t know I could be so provocative

 

[Clownish]

Never understood arguing with strangers over the internet.

How's that for moral superiority.

This forum in particular seems to randomly have the most nit-picky, dig in your heels arguing over semantics back & forths that last for several pages and by the end of it I forget what the original statement was that started the whole ordeal. It carries over to Bears talk, White Sox talk, Bulls...it's not just the polarizing social stuff that you would expect. That 13th forward in the press box, the 12th guy at the end of the bench, the pinch hitter in the 6th inning. Neither side of the argument is ever totally wrong, yet holy hell do they need to be proven right at all costs.

 

[madgoat33]

Pedantry is like 70% of the reason forums exist...

 

[Muffinalt]

This forum in particular seems to randomly have the most nit-picky, dig in your heels arguing over semantics back & forths that last for several pages and by the end of it I forget what the original statement was that started the whole ordeal. It carries over to Bears talk, White Sox talk, Bulls...it's not just the polarizing social stuff that you would expect. That 13th forward in the press box, the 12th guy at the end of the bench, the pinch hitter in the 6th inning. Neither side of the argument is ever totally wrong, yet holy hell do they need to be proven right at all costs.

To be fair it's mostly due to 3 specific posters that always get into this. They don't seem to be aware of their 'moral superiority' complex.

 

[Space umpire]

If you have your CDL at no point can you have a BAC over .02? Even if you're not working, not behind the wheel of a truck? I'm fine with that if thats the case.

But for a regular citizen just driving home from the bar that .02 is absurd

So the Monday thru Friday truck driver gets pulled over on Saturday night, blows .03 and loses his license and his livelihood. And you think that’s ok?
But a factory worker can legally be more than double that and it’s ok for you as well?

 

[x Tame Impala]

So the Monday thru Friday truck driver gets pulled over on Saturday night, blows .03 and loses his license and his livelihood. And you think that’s ok?
But a factory worker can legally be more than double that and it’s ok for you as well?

I guess that I am. Makes sense to me

 

[Space umpire]

I guess that I am. Makes sense to me

Can you explain why one being held to a different standard is ok?

Not an argument, as a longtime truck driver (IBT - 705 in Chicago) I’m interested in why.

 

[Pez68]

Can you explain why one being held to a different standard is ok?

Not an argument, as a longtime truck driver (IBT - 705 in Chicago) I’m interested in why.

One drives a weapon of mass destruction on a daily basis, so should be held to different standards when it comes to driving. But the BAC shit is just silly. A CDL is basically a license to never drink again. Because you can never take the chance, even if you're stone cold sober. You can fail a breathalyzer because of cough medicine....

 

[hawksrule]

One drives a weapon of mass destruction on a daily basis, so should be held to different standards when it comes to driving. But the BAC shit is just silly. A CDL is basically a license to never drink again. Because you can never take the chance, even if you're stone cold sober. You can fail a breathalyzer because of cough medicine....

Any car is a weapon if the person behind the wheel has been drinking.

 

[Space umpire]

One drives a weapon of mass destruction on a daily basis, so should be held to different standards when it comes to driving. But the BAC shit is just silly. A CDL is basically a license to never drink again. Because you can never take the chance, even if you're stone cold sober. You can fail a breathalyzer because of cough medicine....

What it does is forces people to lie. There are many truck drivers who also have a standard car license (I think it’s a class E in Florida) in a neighboring state.
It’s really not difficult. All you need is a trusted notary or fake rental lease and to add or omit your middle initial from the new license application.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Casual misogyny isn't going to make anyone's argument any better.

 

[Mrfenn92]

Lots going around the league. Eh

 

[Clownish]

Casual misogyny isn't going to make anyone's argument any better.

Is this formal enough for you, old bean?