Oh, Uzi, you just carry on. Apparently you have some alcohol problems in your family, so “drunk” in your mind is some big, hairy ordeal wherein people are starting brawls and drooling on themselves because that’s what you’re used to.
Let’s hug. And drink. I have a head start on you, I think it is fair to say. I went to happy hour tonight, but have not thrown up (yet).
This. The day after I nearly sliced off a fingertip and had it sewn back on. That took the edged off of everything, but let me function, probably normally to others.
Makes me wonder about some people…
Most of the self-righteous people I’m seeing here are the anti-alcoholers. And if that was aimed at me, please note that I hardly ever drink these days, and when I do, it’s in fairly small amounts (at most, perhaps half a bottle of wine over three hours). I literally cannot remember the last time I was “drunk,” as in your personal extreme definition of the word.
I wouldn’t hold drinking against a person about to be shot from a gun, or shot by an uzi.
I think that drinking may go well with a muffin. Especially a nice Irish coffee. Mmmmn.
I think I’d like that – not the drinking for me, but the other . . .
I’ve never been a designated driver.
I tried once, though. I was with a group of friends at a bar that had an event going on; bands all day/night. My friends all wanted to drink to excess. I offered to stay sober. The bar was offering free drinks to all designated drivers.
Well, I figured I was due a free drink since I was my groups designated driver. I asked for a double Grey Goose on the rocks. Turns out The “free drinks” applied to non alcohol drinks only! Well, this was at 4 in the afternoon and we would be staying until 1 am or so, plenty of time for me to be sober if I stopped drinking around 6 or 7.
I argued a bit with the bartender, then the owner. The owner ended up buying me a vodka on the rocks and we talked a bit. But I was soured on the job of designated driver and I never offered again.
Here, let me pour some Kahlua in that for you.
A little bit tipsy. Once. Because I hadn’t had anything to eat all day (my alcohol consumption that night was not beyond what I usually would drink). Walked it off within the hour with no lingering side effects.
Thankfully, have never had a hangover or a piss/barf/etc. accident under the influence.
Take a look at how this particular offshoot of the conversation started. It wasn’t by people who don’t drink
But, typical thread fashion, you seem to think that because I don’t drink and have had negative experiences with those that do, that I’m anti-alcohol. No, shoot radiator fluid into your veins for all I care if that makes you able to have fun at parties or relate to those around you rather than dealing with what causes you to be so introverted or anti-social in the first place. That’s your business.
What I am is pro-consequence. eg. anything you do while intoxicated should be treated as if you deliberately choose to do it. This thread just made that position clearer for me.
Previously, I didn’t know that drunk people don’t do things they normally wouldn’t do when sober. Now I’ve been told by people who drink that drunks have full control of what they do. This deviates from my experiences and observations of drunk people, but I’ve never been drunk so it is good to have that insight.
Why should people who are drunk (which definition still hasn’t been agreed to here) be held to a higher standard than those who are not? People who are not drunk do not have every action “anything you do”) evaluated on that basis, it only happens when it becomes actionable in some legal sense.
Probably not a good example:
Say you own a gun and you sit down at the table to clean it. And because the person is a moron, they don’t unload the gun. It goes off and blows grandma’s head off as she sits innocently watching the television on the sofa. This would likely be viewed as an unfortunate accident (depending on how you felt about Grandma, I suppose), but certainly not a deliberate crime.
Now say you did the same thing while drinking. According to the people who drink in this thread, people don’t do anything while drunk they wouldn’t do while sober, so they should know that they shouldn’t play with guns while impaired. The same thing happens and Grandma gets her brains scattered all over her TV dinner. I’m saying they were deliberately negligent in their actions rather than just stupidly so. They essentially chose to whack Grandma. Whether that translates into a worse crime from a legal standpoint is something I’m not qualified to say. I’m just saying it should be.
Maybe a better one:
A friend of mine was a friendly drunk. Never had a problem with him while he drank. He’d usually just end up disappearing to find a bed he could crash in. What he also liked to do was take boards and cut them up on his tablesaw. He never used the saw to make anything useful. He’d just cut up boards or pieces of wood. So, one night he is drinking and decides he needs to chop up wood. As he is doing this he notices that his face is getting wet and the walls and ceiling are covered in red dots. He finally clues into the fact that he’s split his thumb down the center to the first knuckle, straight through the middle of his thumb nail, and he was getting wet from his blood spraying everywhere.
Now, normally, I’d have been sympathetic to someone having an accident like this, but in this case all we could do was give him some good natured ribbing on using power tools while drinking. Essentially, we laughed at him as he sat there with a big bandage on his thumb.
Different consequences for similar actions.
One good thing is that he stopped drinking after this.
[quote=“Uzi, post:232, topic:515787”]
According to the people who drink in this thread, people don’t do anything while drunk they wouldn’t do while sober, so they should know that they shouldn’t play with guns while impaired.
[QUOTE]
I thought I read the entire thread. I don’t recall that at all. I drink and I would never agree that. MeanOldLady implied drinkers who arrive at parties without alcohol are more likely to simply leave. I agree with that. so where did you get your claim other than from thin air? Are you drunk? 
Based on claiming something that never happened, let alone would be sustainable in the larger population anyway…
Maybe a better one:
Bleh - I had a similar accident the night before college started, as a result I was known for a long time for leaving a bloody footprint on every other step. And for being first in the class to land in the emergency room. 20 years later I ended up in the same emergency room with another foot injury (no blood this time) and damn if the nurse didn’t make a comment!
Why? They make mugs and glasses that work left handed?
Why not simply get rid of the saw?
[quote=“not_alice, post:233, topic:515787”]
Fuck, I’ve been over the thread again and can’t see where I’ve picked that one up, either. :smack:The closest I can see at this point is post #207 where MeanOldLady said that people who are assholes while drinking were assholes before they drank. So, they act the same afterwords as before.
I don’t think it make a difference to my position, though. Does it make a difference that they know what they are doing is wrong while doing it but go ahead because alcohol removes the inhibition, or doing an activity (drinking) to such an extent that they know it will deprive them of the ability to make rational choices?
He gave it to me. I threw it out. It was cheap and I didn’t want to come across thumb parts while fixing it up to make it safe for use (he only even looked at the thing while drunk, so no proper maintenance was ever done on it).
[quote=“Uzi, post:234, topic:515787”]
OK then. Glad to hear it, because I was a little buzzed when I wrote that
Well, your position as I understood it was that everything someone who is [drunk whatever that is] is subject to strict scrutiny of some sort, but [not drunk whatever that means] are subject to lesser scrutiny and even none in some cases.
The relative level of scrutiny that you suggested struck me as improper. Since you took my first suggestion to heart, perhaps you will take this one under consideration also.
So there must have been another reason he stopped drinking huh? I bet it is a good story!
[quote=“not_alice, post:235, topic:515787”]
Say you have a basic level of safety or concern that you can reasonably accomplish when you are aware and rational. If it is a safety issue then you can either disregard the safety requirements which could cause an incident or you can make an honest mistake and miss something that causes the same incident. Disregarding the requirement is more serious. By disregarding the requirement you caused the accident and are responsible for the consequences.
My point is that by being impaired you are doing the equivalent of disregarding the safety requirement.
So, when I say you should be responsible for what you do when you are impaired just as if you had chosen to do so, this is what I mean.
Well, I only knew about the tablesaw. What his wife did to him afterwords, I have no idea and he isn’t talking.
[quote=“Uzi, post:236, topic:515787”]
OK, even though you still have left the definitions of terms TBD.
But then by extension are you suggesting we normalize drunk driving laws with sober driving laws, and eliminate the difference?
Off to bed, so I won’t see anything here until tomorrow…
Why on earth is there no “Doper chat for the slightly imbibed” on some chat server somewhere? This should be easy, would be entertaining, and might be beneficial for some of the single peeps here, am I right?
Doper chat should be an option regardless, off the “books” but still in the community. I damn near demand it!
I’m left in the dark, help pls…
A conviction should follow if a sane person walks up, pulls you out of your wheelchair, and rapes you.
A conviction should not follow if a bat shit insane person walks up, pulls you out of your wheelchair, and rapes you, for there was not sufficient mens rea.
Now how about a staggering shit faced out of his head drunk who has no idea what he is doing and can’t remember a thing the next morning walks up, pulls you out of your wheelchair, and rapes you? Should a defence based on lack of mens rea succeed? What if the person was puking speech slurring drunk, but not staggeringly shit faced out of his head? What if the person was just tipsy to the point of not being as inhibited as usual, but not puking speech slurring drunk? At which point should a defence based on a lack of mens rea be permitted? Alcohol impairs brain functioning. At what point does impaired brain functioning constitute lack of mens rea?
Take this concept and play with it in four respects.
First, how drunk does one have to be before one cannot have sufficient mens rea – tipsy, speech slurring, walking zombie?
Second, for what crimes should a mens rea defence not be permitted – drunk driving, smashing windows, killing people?
Third, should the degree of mens rea required for conviction be varied depending on the type of crime – tipsy, slurring or zombie for vandalism, tipsy v. slurring or zombie for rape?
Fourth, for additional points, factor in the societal problem of a great many violent crimes involving some degree of alcohol or drug use.
My personal opinion is that everyone knows that getting drunk often leads to people doing stupid things, so people should not be permitted to use a mens rea based defence if the lack of mens rea was based on self-induced drunkenness. I personally would prefer if men rea be imputed if a person does a nasty while drunk if that person chose to drink in the first place. I realize that this is a very black and white approach.