> A third of a bottle of tequila is probably not what you would consider a wild night out
This is sad to see. You know what’s better than binging on hangover-free alcohol? Not binging in the first place.
This is sad to see. You know what’s better than binging on hangover-free alcohol? Not binging in the first place.
Binge drinking is defined by the UK at 8+ units for men and 6+ for women, 250ml of tequila is around 10. Although I think reality most men will drink far more than 10 units.
Fun fact about UK units: they are equal to the alcohol % (ABV, half of US proof) in 1 litre of the liquid, so calculation is easy. For example a 6% ABV lager means there are 6 units in a litre, so a 500ml can is 3 units and a 330ml can is around 2 units.
Hence the UK Police breathalising every accident - especially those in the mornings: a ' hangover'just means 'still drunk'.
"Sad to see", it may be, but there are serious binge-drinkers (who may not necessarily be alcoholic) to whom "Not binging in the first place", wasn't the original intention and also don't regard it as binging if it doesn't last 24+hrs.
DUI isn't a cheap ticket. I'm sure the financial incentive has nothing to do with it.
My state was gonna strengthen DUI laws because the safety hand wringers and the teetotalers wanted to. The cops put their foot down and said no because making it a "real crime" would result in people lawyering up, fighting and beating the frivolous charges at the expense of revenue. If that doesn't show you what the priorities are...
Don't get me wrong, real DUI is a real crime but for every person charged with that there's another one that thought they were successfully attempting to be lawful by being below the limit who also got charged because that's what the laws permit and that's what the financial incentive is.
Here (well, UK and Belgium) I think the police would not charge you if you passed a test (but they might several times).
One explanation I was given for comparatively poor & worsening road safety in the US was the lack of serious penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.
It meant getting eliminating some those crimes the cops don't charge people with but the courts can let people plead down to as lesser offenses and upgrading others to be roughly as life-ruinous as a DUI. This would have caused all those people who caught a DUI charge at .05 because they didn't play their cards right to walk instead of take a plea deal for a lesser charge, much to the detriment of government coffers. I don't think that's necessarily a bad outcome but the point I was making at the time was that financial incentives pervert justice in this case.
(The state in my example was Washington FYI)
>One explanation I was given for comparatively poor & worsening road safety in the US was the lack of serious penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.
And people also complain that the US is a bunch of tee-totaling puritans. Things vary widely by state. I think there's a couple in the midwest that are more lax. Drunk driving has been on a pretty much constant decline since forever so I'm generally suspect of it as an explanation for anything anywhere.