Blood alcohol levels- 1 drink per hr is NOT ok?

[mindless1]

Based on BMI, I could probably drink a fifth per hour...but seriously...if you have one drink per hour, (shot of liquor) what the hell do you drink for the other 55-59 minutes?

It's not necessarily one drink per hour, rather the amount of time that has passed since you started drinking. However the figure I've seen referenced in more technical literature was 0.016%/hr, not 0.01%.

DUI though, is as much about driving mistakes or else you'd never have been pulled over (ignoring random DUI checkpoints). Doesn't really matter the cause, just that you are a potential danger to yourself and others. I guess it could be a stop due to a broken tail light or whatever instead, but if you're of sound mind then you won't be slurring or act intoxicated.

I drive fine after 2 drinks still in my system ( and a little time has passed so really 1.n drinks) but choose not to go past that, but that's on a good day. Suppose I'm tired/sleep deprived/dehydrated/distracted/low on caffeine/medicated/whatever, then wouldn't drink at all if I needed to drive somewhere.

 

[destrekor]

I hope nobody relies upon calculators!

Seriously.

It is relatively safe to test the 1 beer/hour theory and assess from there, but don't bank on it, please! As someone who has had trouble under varying circumstances, you have to account for different variables.

Medication changes, or just medication in general, may greatly complicate matters. But then you also have: how much food? Tolerance? Sure you have your weight in the calculator, but how much of that weight is bone vs muscle vs fat? If you are a beefy motherfucker, a veritable barrel chest, your alcohol metabolism is going to be off the charts more than likely, especially compared to someone perhaps half the weight but decidedly not dense with muscle (perhaps even skinny-fat).

 

[destrekor]

I'm kinda heavy and (sadly) used to drink heavily. I could probably consume 1 drink and walk straight to the parking lot, not be in any trouble.

To be honest, almost everyone could. Especially if you chugged it and went right to the car - even the biggest lightweight won't feel anything until awhile into the drive. The more sensitive people will have issues if they have to wait 30-60 minutes from consumption to start of drive, but even those folk are exceptionally rare.

Weight hasn't a thing to do with an ability to have one drink and drive home without any risk, let alone breaking any laws.

If you want to judge yourself negatively, you will need to think bigger.

 

[shortylickens]

To be honest, almost everyone could. Especially if you chugged it and went right to the car - even the biggest lightweight won't feel anything until awhile into the drive. The more sensitive people will have issues if they have to wait 30-60 minutes from consumption to start of drive, but even those folk are exceptionally rare.

Weight hasn't a thing to do with an ability to have one drink and drive home without any risk, let alone breaking any laws.

If you want to judge yourself negatively, you will need to think bigger.

No, it has to do with the blood alcohol level, you miserable dingus.

 

[Ackmed]

So many other factors play a part. It would be silly to think a simple one drink per hour rule applies to everyone.

 

[local]

Medication changes, or just medication in general, may greatly complicate matters.

Very true. Once upon a time I used to be on some cool meds that let me drink cheapo 2% beer and get quite intoxicated after only about 6 of them. I was surprised when I got off the meds and I could drink a 12 pack without getting much more than a nice buzz. Regular strength beer knocked me on my ass when I was on those meds.

 

[mindless1]

The real question is, after you've had enough drinks that you might be over a legal limit, are you going to have the patience to do math much more complex than 1 drink = 1 hour? Did you measure exactly a shot in your last mixed drink? Did you have a 7% ABV ice beer instead of 5% average? Did you dump the last swig out because it's summer and it got warm?

Personally, I feel like if you have to start thinking about these things, you shouldn't drive.

 

[interchange]

Some points from a doctor:

#1 Subtracting 0.01 / hr is conservative, and I believe intentionally so. However, clearance of alcohol varies considerably from person to person, although it is generally linear. So if you have access to a breathalyzer you can find out your own clearance. That being said, do it many times and average the results because there isn't enough precision in a breathalyzer reading that stops at the hundredths place.

#2 Based on that chart, I'd by waaaayyyy unsafe to drive at 0.08.

#3 The "death possible" range is for people who don't have tolerance. I've seen people with BAL pushing 0.5 who were capable of having a conversation.

#4 Learn what a standard drink is. Most people don't realize that their beer, wine glass, or cocktail might actually constitute 2-3 standard drinks.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Considering the tiny amounts required to be considered over the limit it's best not to chance it. I always take a cab to any kind of outing where I plan to drink. I never get drunk as I pace myself, after a couple drinks I know I'd be able to drive but I would not actually do it. There's one night I had like 8-10 drinks, probably the most I've drinked in a single outing. Was starting to feel good then, definitely would not want to drive. I've always been kinda curious to see what it takes to get me drunk, but I don't want to actually get drunk, so won't challenge that. I've gotten on the verge though so I have a general idea. I think the speed at which I drink is a bigger factor than how much I drink. I could probably drink all day and feel fine if I just kept pacing myself and had water in between. But I'd probably have a ridiculously high BAL.

 

[nakedfrog]

If you had a ridiculously high BAL, you'd be drunk.

 

[destrekor]

LOL

Right - that's not exactly how BAC/BAL works.

If you drank all day, but you paced yourself so that perhaps you drank one equivalent drink per hour, and/or added regular water between drinks, the result could be as low as 0.02 BAC or less.

If you can drink all day and feel fine, you are likely drinking at a pace that allows your metabolism to keep up and prevent a major buildup. Generally, unless you are a raging alcoholic, if you feel fine, you are if not under the legal limit, at least hovering around it.

Regardless of your tolerance, your BAC is what usually defines your level of intoxication. Again, unless you are a raging alcoholic, you won't feel sober if you are twice the legal limit. Now, your bravado may make you THINK you are sober (been there, done that), but you certainly are not sober.

Now, there are two types of tolerance: tolerance to intoxication, meaning you are used to the effects of alcohol and your unconscious self has learned to tolerate the side effects, compensating for them; or, tolerance to alcohol, which would mean you have a physical capacity to metabolize more ethanol.

 

[destrekor]

Some points from a doctor:

#1 Subtracting 0.01 / hr is conservative, and I believe intentionally so. However, clearance of alcohol varies considerably from person to person, although it is generally linear. So if you have access to a breathalyzer you can find out your own clearance. That being said, do it many times and average the results because there isn't enough precision in a breathalyzer reading that stops at the hundredths place.

#2 Based on that chart, I'd by waaaayyyy unsafe to drive at 0.08.

#3 The "death possible" range is for people who don't have tolerance. I've seen people with BAL pushing 0.5 who were capable of having a conversation.

#4 Learn what a standard drink is. Most people don't realize that their beer, wine glass, or cocktail might actually constitute 2-3 standard drinks.

This 12oz bottle of 15% ABV beer is my favorite standard drink! Judging against that, I can have two of those or nearly a whole bottle of wine (best drinking vessel ever!!!), and the world would be a wonderful place for it! lol

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

These days, after one beer I'd be plowing my car into crowds at a German Christmas market.

I'm out of practice.

There's a lot of truth to this. When you drink frequently, the tolerance you have is way better.

I'd rather have the regular drunk at 0.2 over the social drinker at 0.1 on the road any day.

 

[SearchMaster]

There's a lot of truth to this. When you drink frequently, the tolerance you have is way better.

I'd rather have the regular drunk at 0.2 over the social drinker at 0.1 on the road any day.

My sister was married to a cop many years ago. He pulled a lady over whose BAC was near fatal levels (over .4). She was obviously a chronic alcoholic, and said that although she slurred her words quite badly her driving wasn't noticeably poor. He pulled her over for a missing headlight.

 

[cbrunny]

that's stupid

you might have a different opinion if your partner was killed by a drunk driver.

 

[interchange]

My sister was married to a cop many years ago. He pulled a lady over whose BAC was near fatal levels (over .4). She was obviously a chronic alcoholic, and said that although she slurred her words quite badly her driving wasn't noticeably poor. He pulled her over for a missing headlight.

There are lots of people out there that are safer drivers above the legal limit than below. Doesn't mean they should be driving in either condition .

 

[interchange]

Now, there are two types of tolerance: tolerance to intoxication, meaning you are used to the effects of alcohol and your unconscious self has learned to tolerate the side effects, compensating for them; or, tolerance to alcohol, which would mean you have a physical capacity to metabolize more ethanol.

To be precise, the first thing you say is tolerance, and the second thing is metabolism. It is true that an alcoholic's metabolism does increase, but it's not reliably predictable. Food does increase metabolism.

 

[Carson Dyle]

There are lots of people out there that are safer drivers above the legal limit than below.

That's absurd.

It would be true if you said: "There are lots of people out there that are safer drivers above the legal limit than some other people are below it."

 

[highland145]

That's absurd.

It would be true if you said: "There are lots of people out there that are safer drivers above the legal limit than some other people are below it."

Thought that's what he meant but anyway.....a practiced drunk vs my 77 y.o. mother, assuming that I had to choose, I'm going with the practiced drunk every time.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Zero tolerance should be the law.

Blood sugar spikes/troughs have a greater effect on me mentally than a beer does. How does that factor in?

 

[cbrunny]

Blood sugar spikes/troughs have a greater effect on me mentally than a beer does. How does that factor in?

well, in a conversation about how much alcohol impairs driving, blood sugar has nothing to do with how alcohol impairs driving.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

well, in a conversation about how much alcohol impairs driving, blood sugar has nothing to do with how alcohol impairs driving.

I was inferring that BA level being a binary thing for a given person might not be the best stance to take, considering there's other factors that could have greater effect than BA level.

Mind you, I'm not defending drunk driving in any way. Just saying, very few things are black and white like that.

 

[MrSquished]

you might have a different opinion if your partner was killed by a drunk driver.

I'm not supporting drunk driving. Just not a zero sum option.

 

[cbrunny]

I'm not supporting drunk driving. Just not a zero sum option.

As is your right, as is it the right of others to advocate a different opinion. Neither are stupid. Both have merit.

 

[nakedfrog]

Zero tolerance is generally the worst policy for anything.
By which I mean the harm they do by disallowing mitigating circumstances often seems to upset the gains that may be realized from it.