calling all beer lovers

Source: http://legalize2beers.com
Published: Jul 26, 2016
Author: Barry Midyet
Post Date: 2016-07-26 07:15:26 by interpreter
Views: 2724

Have any of you ever spent 30 days in the hole for drinking two beers? Well, I have -- twice -- and I'm not going down again without a fight. The legal BAC (blood-alcohol-content) in some states, including Texas, at which you are considered too impaired to drive, is .08%. That's about 3 regular beers or two tall boys, depending on your weight. For example, a 220-pound man can generally tolerate twice as much alcohol as a 110-pound female. And I weigh about 140 pounds, so 2 tall boys does it for me. And despite what MADD says, most studies and most states say you are not impaired until your BAC reaches .1%. So I have started a movement to legalize 2 beers (in Texas and wherever MADD has caused the legal BAC to be lowered to .08). Basically I am defending an age-old Texas tradition of stopping for a couple beers after work dating from the days of Stephen F Austin. The first writing, found in Mesopotamia (also called the Cradle of Civilization and the Garden of Eden in the Bible) says (when translated into English) "fermented red grapes + barley + hops" which is an early recipe for beer (before brewer's yeast was discovered and eventually replaced the fermented grapes). Grapes were plentiful in the Garden of Eden but the barley and hops had to be cultivated -- which led to the first farming --which led to the first civilization. In other words, modern man arrived on the scene, not because of our opposable thumbs or the discovery of fire, etc., but because of the discovery of beer. And I have a medical prescription for two beers daily and without beer I would waste away and die. (See my website, legalize2beers.com). So for several reasons I am fighting back against MADD and the current prohibition movement. Anyone with me on this?

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: ConservingFreedom    To: interpreter (#0)

And despite what MADD says, most studies and most states say you are not impaired until your BAC reaches .1%.

I agree with that - and that's by far your soundest argument. If .08 was genuinely impairing, then all the history and tradition in the world wouldn't make it permissible for one to endanger others by driving; but if not, government should mind its own business, end of story.

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-26 12:07:27   Reply   Private Reply

#2: misterwhite    To: interpreter (#0)

"And despite what MADD says, most studies and most states say you are not impaired until your BAC reaches .1%."

Whatever. You're still buying into their philosophy that a free adult citizen can be punished for something they might do.

If that punishment took the form of a warning or small fine, that would be one thing. But they demand jail terms, large fines and legal costs, and loss of driver's license (possibly leading to loss of job).

Serious consequences for someone who hasn't harmed anyone.

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-26 12:51:38   Reply   Private Reply

#3: interpreter    To: misterwhite (#2)

Whatever. You're still buying into their philosophy that a free adult citizen can be punished for something they might do.

If that punishment took the form of a warning or small fine, that would be one thing. But they demand jail terms, large fines and legal costs, and loss of driver's license (possibly leading to loss of job).

Serious consequences for someone who hasn't harmed anyone.

Well said misterwhite, another very good argument. Besides spending 30 days in the hole, I also had to pay large fines and legal costs (expensive lawyers) and lost my drivers license for a while. I am hoppin mad at MADD.

interpreter posted on 2016-07-26 17:42:29   Reply   Private Reply

#4: buckeroo    To: interpreter (#3)

Besides spending 30 days in the hole, I also had to pay large fines and legal costs (expensive lawyers) and lost my drivers license for a while.

Since you are a self-appointed prognostigator, why didn't you whip out your crystal ball and PREDICT the outcome so you could avoid the penalties altogether? Better yet, why didn't you avoid getting caught?

buckeroo posted on 2016-07-26 20:14:29   Reply   Private Reply

#5: jeremiad    To: misterwhite (#2)

I am with you. If you can be proven to have been a danger on the road by observation, an arrest is in order. By observation, I don't mean setting up a road block. I mean by an officer watching his section of town, or road, and noticing someone weaving. Grinding gears, going too slow, too fast, or observed being messed up.

jeremiad posted on 2016-07-28 18:12:13   Reply   Private Reply

#6: misterwhite    To: jeremiad (#5)

"I am with you. If you can be proven to have been a danger on the road by observation, an arrest is in order. By observation, I don't mean setting up a road block. I mean by an officer watching his section of town, or road, and noticing someone weaving. Grinding gears, going too slow, too fast, or observed being messed up."

Yes. A ticket would be warranted for that reckless behavior no matter the cause -- alcohol, on the phone, texting, radio too loud, rowdy kids in the car, eating, etc. So we agree there.

I'm saying that if the driver gets into an accident involving injuries, death, or property damage, the penalties would be enhanced if alcohol was a factor. Simply driving while intoxicated would not be a crime, since the definition of intoxication is an arbitrary standard set by politics rather than science.

misterwhite posted on 2016-07-28 18:32:07   Reply   Private Reply