Caffeinated Alcoholic Energy Drinks

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ROFLyoshi

I have never understood how the US could have such a stupidly high age group.quote>

Two factors:

1 - Americans tend to drive everywhere while Europeans tend to walk.  Walking home from the local pub is not an option many Americans have.  (This topic was discussed in detail in another thread but I forget which one.)

2 - The Puritans came over here and the continent has never been the same since.   At one point, it was illegal for anyone to anyone of any age to sell, manufacture or transport alcoholic beverages.  [link]   It wasn't all that long ago.  This law was still in effect when my mother was a teenager.

[TekindusT 3,809]

@Larks2242: This is why I stated "most of the times".

[Larks2242 251]

Ah ok i missed that part

[nathanthemayor 1,261]

I wouldn't drink one of those things if I were you.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Originally posted by: TekindusT

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Just bring a designated driver easy, Problem solved quote>

Or reach the place by public transport. Most of the times isn't easy, but it is much better than putting your life at risk...

quote>

Public transport isn't always available or accessible in some places.quote>

And even when it is, taking it isn't always an option given the timing involved. You can live, work, and go to a bar all off the same train line, but that isn't helpful at 2 AM when you're looking to go home and the trains stopped running at midnight. The only place in America you really have the luxury of being able to stay out to whatever ungodly hour you please and still be able to use public transit to get home is New York.

You can always call a cab, but that can start to get expensive. And even that isn't an option if you're out in suburbia rather than in a city.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: ROFLyoshi

I have never understood how the US could have such a stupidly high age group.quote>

Two factors:

1 - Americans tend to drive everywhere while Europeans tend to walk.  Walking home from the local pub is not an option many Americans have.  (This topic was discussed in detail in another thread but I forget which one.)

2 - The Puritans came over here and the continent has never been the same since.   At one point, it was illegal for anyone to anyone of any age to sell, manufacture or transport alcoholic beverages.  [link]   It wasn't all that long ago.  This law was still in effect when my mother was a teenager.

quote>

Australia is very car-cultured, and I'd personally say that it is closer politically and ideologically to the US than the UK. And yet it is still 18.

Back in the days of prohibition, Australia was aligned to the UK, so I see how that point works out.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Originally posted by: TekindusT

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Just bring a designated driver easy, Problem solved quote>

Or reach the place by public transport. Most of the times isn't easy, but it is much better than putting your life at risk...

quote>

Public transport isn't always available or accessible in some places.quote>

And even when it is, taking it isn't always an option given the timing involved. You can live, work, and go to a bar all off the same train line, but that isn't helpful at 2 AM when you're looking to go home and the trains stopped running at midnight. The only place in America you really have the luxury of being able to stay out to whatever ungodly hour you please and still be able to use public transit to get home is New York.quote>

I'll take that as gold, excepting taxis.  Here in the Bay Area, the trains (BART), leave SF for the suburbs at 11:42 (Civic Center - yeah, I know it by rote), unless you want the real last one, which is around 12:10 and involves an iffy connection/transfer.  Its pathetic, in my mind.  I think they should run 24hrs and just reduce the timeframe to about an hour.    It would solve a lot of DUIs.  There is always a lot of folks waiting to catch that last train.  The problem they have here is commuter focus, as if regular folks don't want a nice night out on the town.

Barbarossa

quote>

Shouldn't they offer special late Friday night services?

[TekindusT 3,809]

Yeah, they should; but as in many other places, they don't. In the case I know, trains stop running at 1:58 when the day after is a holiday and the first train begins its service at 5:00; mostly aimed for commuters as Barbarossa said. There are night buses running every hour, but they're not what you would call "confortable" nor "fast".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Originally posted by: TekindusT

Originally posted by: Larks2242

Just bring a designated driver easy, Problem solved quote>

Or reach the place by public transport. Most of the times isn't easy, but it is much better than putting your life at risk...

quote>

Public transport isn't always available or accessible in some places.quote>

And even when it is, taking it isn't always an option given the timing involved. You can live, work, and go to a bar all off the same train line, but that isn't helpful at 2 AM when you're looking to go home and the trains stopped running at midnight. The only place in America you really have the luxury of being able to stay out to whatever ungodly hour you please and still be able to use public transit to get home is New York.

You can always call a cab, but that can start to get expensive. And even that isn't an option if you're out in suburbia rather than in a city.

quote>

In Toronto, when the subway closes, there is bus service, not very frequently.

[DocRorlach 25]

Does anyone here really believe that a better public transport system would make a even a dent into the DUI stats? Methinks you are forgetting that a) the person who drinks so much he/she can no longer drive when he/she arrived by car is basically stupid; and b) by the time that quantity of alcohol has been consumed, what vestiges of intelligence there were have already been flushed down the drain. What remains of this person is an imbecile who will go behind the wheel unless physically restrained. If DUIs are to be reduced then one - not the ultimate - of the answers would be to criminalize it: make drunk driving a capital offence, par with attempte manslaughter.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

There never ought to be any reason to et personal here, Barbarossa. We do have considerably better public transport here in Europe and yet that has not made a dent in to the number of DUIs recorded. The fact that some countries already do treat accidents resulting from drunk driving as involuntary manslaughter does speak volumes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Recent developments have equipped some cars with breathalyzers which are linked to the car's systems such that if you cannot pass the test, the car just is so much metal and other parts that doesn't do anything.  Legislation should be passed everywhere that makes this a mandatory safety feature of all new automobiles by say, 2015.

And before anyone cries about freedom and the first amendment to the Consitution of the United States, remember this is a safety feature and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, choice, expression or any of that other liberal garbage.  And this is an international site, based in Canada.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Does anyone here really believe that a better public transport system would make a even a dent into the DUI stats? Methinks you are forgetting that a) the person who drinks so much he/she can no longer drive when he/she arrived by car is basically stupid; and b) by the time that quantity of alcohol has been consumed, what vestiges of intelligence there were have already been flushed down the drain. What remains of this person is an imbecile who will go behind the wheel unless physically restrained. If DUIs are to be reduced then one - not the ultimate - of the answers would be to criminalize it: make drunk driving a capital offence, par with attempte manslaughter.quote>

I do believe it, and I am the one who said it.  You have completely missed the point.  If someone wants to go drinking, then they obviously have made their decision.  That does NOT mean they wouldn't prefer to use mass transit, IF it was available.  If it were, many drinkers would use it, get sloshed and take the train/bus/cab home.  If mass transit is not available, then they will be driving.  Of course, there are plenty of idiots out there and there will still be drunk drivers, but there would be LESS of them.

Please read before posting nonsense.

Barbarossa quote>

Cabs are always an option every were. Yet people dont take advantage of it.

one point  no one has brought up is,you have the guy that gets toasted at a bar.

you think hes in any shape to get on the "right" bus or train?

I would have no clue how to get from a bar in Dallas to the bus stop near me sober, much less intoxicated.

 

[DocRorlach 25]

As EasyBakes says in his signature: "Stupidity should always be painful" - unfortunately in cases of DUI all too often it is to other people.

Barbarossa: my response was aimed at the entire DUI part of the discussion, not at a single post;

Moose: That would be a brilliant idea, as long as it is not left to the motor industry to develop. The best anti-car-theft method already exists (car stalls after 2 minutes, gasses thief to sleep) but left to Detroit & Yokohama this will never make it into production. I can just picture the number of recalls because the biometrics have failed and the car can only be driven if the family's pet enters it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Moose: That would be a brilliant idea, as long as it is not left to the motor industry to develop. The best anti-car-theft method already exists (car stalls after 2 minutes, gasses thief to sleep) but left to Detroit & Yokohama this will never make it into production. I can just picture the number of recalls because the biometrics have failed and the car can only be driven if the family's pet enters it.quote>

Why Doc, are you suggesting that the so-called automotive engineers couldn't do such a simple thing?  Considering their track record I am surprised that more people are not killed by the airbags.  We all know what a bust the internal combustion engine is, yet they persist after more than one hundred years.  I guess you have to be a sheep in the pen of the car barons.

Give me a Stanley Steamer, some modern mechanical engineers, and we'll update it to an external combustion engine that only outputs water vapour as waste product and not much of that.

[EyeofMobius 27]

The auto conversation reminds me of 2 things:

1. The scene in the movie fight club where Edward Norton is explaining the formula of recalling vehicles to a woman on a plane. The woman being a bit disturbed at how the manufacturers use this formula asks which company he works for and his reply is "A major one."

2. A Chris Rock stand-up comment about how we can put a person on the moon but we cant make a Cadillac that doesn't rust.

------------------------

The only way to remove DUI's is to remove driving from the equation. There is no way that the influence side is going to lose hold on the world...influence is naturally not limited to alcohol; it easily includes drugs (lawful or not)and in far reaching approaches it can include being tired, emotional or even having passengers; It certainly should be excercised more in people who multi-task while driving. The only hope we have against removing influence is death by which point driving becomes moot.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: EyeofMobius

The only way to remove DUI's is to remove driving from the equation. There is no way that the influence side is going to lose hold on the world...influence is naturally not limited to alcohol; it easily includes drugs (lawful or not)and in far reaching approaches it can include being tired, emotional or even having passengers; It certainly should be excercised more in people who multi-task while driving. The only hope we have against removing influence is death by which point driving becomes moot.quote>

I think we have covered the "any substance" thing in the current version of the criminal code.  Linky. Have a skim though this section, and especially section 253.

This has been getting more and more comprehensive year by year.  It used to be one paragraph as Section 208.  Long since superceded by this.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Does this also ban cocktails (mixed drinks) with caffeine and alcohol? So, can bars serve Irish coffees or Red Bull and Vodka?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Does this also ban cocktails (mixed drinks) with caffeine and alcohol? So, can bars serve Irish coffees or Red Bull and Vodka?quote>

Not sure of your context, mi amico.

There are lots and lots of cocktails with coffee and alcohol.  Some of them even come bottled, like Kahlua.

Besides "Caffinated alcoholic energy" is a triple barreled oxymoron.  Alcohol is a depressant.

[EyeofMobius 27]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Does this also ban cocktails (mixed drinks) with caffeine and alcohol? So, can bars serve Irish coffees or Red Bull and Vodka?quote>

My understanding of the wording in the article is that it would be able to umbrella over existing successful caffiene alcohol drinks while being purposefully aimed at the pre-mixed energy combinations; Like killing a mosquito with a cannon. It is my greatest concern wiht bans like these that they grant more tools to the people who see themselves as guardians of a morally righteous society and would see the return of puritan style laws.

Currently in Canada alcohol and energy drinks are served with the alcohol served in a shot glass beside the drink and also shows up as a separate item on the bill. This is a work around from the establishment's point of view but essentially the consumer is just ordering the drink the same and putting it together like IKEA furniture.

@ A Nonny Moose: The laws I am a bit more familiar with in regards to impairment are the ones tied in with provincial legislation. At the time of my driver's training those laws were imparted to illustrate how impairment is not just a chemical state and also could be used to fine pedestrians and cyclists separate from public drunkeness. Fortunately the law isn't enforced to apply DUI's to pedestrians and rarely cyclists as the related public drunkeness ordinances take care of the neccessary items well enough. Mind you this is Alberta where the laws seem to be in a prolonged cycle of conservative reforms.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Seems to me that the fountainhead of the federal thought is an economist from Alberta.

Legislation aimed at forbidding things is always too broad and has many opportunities for both misinterpretation and for twisting of the spirit of the law.  One of the biggest problems that seems to be in the process of being fixed is the wording of acts.  They are getting clearer, ahd the "whereas"'s and "herefofore"'s are disappearing.  I rather like the wording of the current interpretation web pages on the criminal code. The English version is very clear and explicit.  I hope the French is as good.

[DocRorlach 25]

I recall two separate incidents in Austin, Texas, during my fleeting (or was it fleeing) stay there: in one case, two bycicle cops nabbed a man staggering obviously drunk out of a bar and heading towards a taxi. Turned out the bartender held open the door, and the man's car was parked across the street. Seemed that everyone behaved sensible here. Except for the two cops who charged the man with "drunk and disorderly conduct in public". It even made the local papers the next day - though I do not know if the charges were made to stick. This being Texas, I would assume so.

The other incident, only two days later, had a police car cut off a cyclist, causing him to land on the car's hood. He wasn't totally blotto, but neither was he exactly sober. He was, according to the papers, charge with a DUI while commanding a vehicle on a public road. That resulted in a fine and - unbelievably - in a suspension of his driver's license even though he was on a cycle at the time. Being a part-time taxi driver (and a student), it cost him his job.

Laws are, unfortunately, carried out by officials with less than half a brain most of the time. Thus, unless you can word the laws exact and secific, with no ambiguities, they remain open to interpretation. I give you another example I witnessed in NYC, a bit over a year later: on a street corner somewhere around mid-town, a cop is huffing and puffing and telling people (mostly tourists) not to "hold up traffic" and cross the "f*****g street". The pedestrian lights are red, but there is just now no traffic. As I walk further up town, stopping here and there, I come across the very same cop giving a young couple a ticket for "jay-walking" - crossing an empty street against the red, pedestrian lights.

I rest my case.

[Easy Bakes 253]

A few years ago there were thinking of  chargeing people IN bars with public intoxication.

I think we had a thread about it then.

I think its one of those 'Feel good" laws thet get passed to make protesters go away but  are never intended to be enforced.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In Ontari-ari-ario if you get picked up for operating any powered vehicle or vessel you lose every license you have, including driver's, pilot's, and boat operator's.  Airline pilots who sail for recreation are very cautious.  A boat/yacht has to have a galley and sleeping accommodation before you are allowed to even have alcohol on board.  And you are not allowed to drink while underway.  The definition of underway is a set of negatives:  Not tied to a pier, not at anchor, and not aground.

[DocRorlach 25]

A sailor without a tote of rum? Is nothing sacred anymore? What is this world coming to???

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You can drink yourself blind provided you are not underway in Canadian waters.  However, having command of a vessel when you are not all there can be fatal to the boat.  Driving a sailing yacht is easily as complex as flying a helicopter.  You have to do at least three things at once:  Steer your course; keep the sails trimmed; watch out for others; watch the weather; and listen for the depth alarm.

[DocRorlach 25]

I can understand that; after humans I trust water the least - when all the numbers are tallied there is currently no bigger killer on this planet. It has been thus for a long, long time and was only ever superseeded by WW2.

I actually think that this paramount ban on vehicular operation should be covered from all angles, not just from boating is a starting point. And it ought to be one of the very, very few UN laws to be enforced by ratifying governments to make it global. Primarily because on that list of top ten killers, vehicles ranked second or third.