By definition and law, there is no such thing as a "non-alcoholic" beer, wine, etc. So for drinkers, they would be better off using the correct terminology which is "low-acohol" beer, wine, etc.... With the new zero tolerance laws with regard to drinking and driving, are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving? Keeping in mind that they do contain a very small amount of alcohol. ...
If you want to be safe then as the thread title suggest - "Zero Tolerence" means zero alcohol.
BTW - I look forward to the Government inroducing zero tolerence for blood-breath alcohol tests for drivers and for supervisors of learner-permit holders. We still have one of the highest "acceptable levels" in Europe and are amonst the highest in the world.
NA Becks contains .05% alcohol. Alcoholic Becks contains 5%.
Actually it is neither. The only alternative to zero alcohol levels for drivers is an acceptable level of alcohol intoxication. I would be interested in hearing any views on what this level is.This is alarmist nonsense. ...
And no doubt he had access to extensive research and vast scientific and medical training and knowledge to support his views....As a Priest from the Pioneers once told us at school, "you will get sick from drinking non-alcoholic beer before you get drunk on it". ...
1 ) Its not an argument, as my post said its something "I look forward to", in other words a hope or aspiration...
This argument misses the point in 2 respects.
- Criminalising sober drivers is a funny way to go about detecting the hardcore drunk driving that goes on regardless of what limit is set.
- In many countries where a lower level applies compared to here, a driver does not lose their licence for exceeding the limit.
With regard to zero tolerance, it is fine as long as the Government puts in place an alternative means of transport particularly in rural areas where the clampdown has virtually destroyed the social aspect of life
Enforcement of the existing laws would also make the roads safer. This is not happening. Why would the addition of a new law change this?5) A zero tolerence to blood or breath alcohol levels might initially mean an increase in the detection of what your post classifies as "hardcore drunk driving", I don't see that as a bad thing if ultimately it makes the roads safer.
Are you aware that alcohol occurs naturally within the human body to the extent that it can show up on blood-alcohol and urine-alcohol readings, even for teetotallers?Actually it is neither. The only alternative to zero alcohol levels for drivers is an acceptable level of alcohol intoxication.
And no doubt he had access to extensive research and vast scientific and medical training and knowledge to support his views.
By definition and law, there is no such thing as a "non-alcoholic" beer, wine, etc. So for drinkers, they would be better off using the correct terminology which is "low-acohol" beer, wine, etc.
Whether consuming low-alcohol drinks can produce a postive indication or "fail" on a breath-test machine or blood-test is very much an individual thing.
Each of us metabolizes or breaks down whatever we consume at different rates, and for any individual there's a multiplicity of factors to be taken into account - the elapsed time since the last drink, smoker / non-smoker, other substances consumed, how well the digestive system works on the day, whether we have eaten, what we have eaten, how healthy our liver / kidneys are, and so on. So whats "safe" for me today may be unsafe for me tomorrow.
If you want to be safe then as the thread title suggest - "Zero Tolerence" means zero alcohol.
BTW - I look forward to the Government inroducing zero tolerence for blood-breath alcohol tests for drivers and for supervisors of learner-permit holders. We still have one of the highest "acceptable levels" in Europe and are amonst the highest in the world.
I wonder how many U-turns the lobby-groups will manage to induce the then Minister to make when this is proposed.
My emphasis above is on "safety" rather than just the "detectable level", as I see them as being totally different things.
I was breathalysed on a Saturday evening after having had 4 units of alcohol on the Thursday night (from 8pm to about midnight) and it showed up as 0.1. I was doing manual labour in the interim and nothing resembling alcohol passed my lips (no sherry trifle, baileys cheesecake, cough medicine etc.). I also have quite a fast metabolism so I was quite surprised overall. That was my first ever breath test incidentally, and I've been driving for 14-odd years.
How exactly did you measure these "units"? If it was by the usually rule of thumb of "glasses of beer/wine" then this is very imprecise especially since the ABV for different drinks varies so much.
Also, you'd think that the calibration of the breathalysers (or intoxilyser, such a stupid name) should take account of these naturally occuring alcohols in your body and rate them as the zero point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?