Alcohol consumption whilst at anchor

[Nooka]

OK, OK, I'm not talking about steaming paralytic drunk here, which is clearly not a good idea for so many reasons. But two drinks? Or 3? Way too low imo. My point is that the risks arising from alcohol, on a slow sailing boat, are way, way different from driving two tons of metal at 70mph feet away from many, many others doing the same thing, some in the opposite direction. To impose similar limits is over the top nonsense in the case of sailing, or appallingly negligent complacency in the case of driving. There is no case I can see why they should be the same or even similar. After nearly 40 years working in government, I know that there are very many people working on the policy coalface for whom pleasure, or personal freedom, have no place in their policy lexicon. Sounds like we in the U.K. actually got the least zealous and the really officious barstewards emigrated to Queensland.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by DaveWalters

Mike,IIRC what you posted is business lawsuits,however in personal lawsuits the US is way out in front,IIRC then the UK,Japan,France,Germany,maybe a couple European countries,Australia,and trailing back is Canada.

Well, I’d love to see an actual reference for this Dave. I’ve looked again and can’t find definitive data. The US does seem to have more lawyers/capita than anywhere else, and I found one document which listed liability costs as a % of GDP (#1: USA, #2: Canada), but that’s it so far.

Originally Posted by DaveWalters

In British Columbia alcohol on a boat is a grey area.
The RCMP very very rarely bother you.
But in a resort city/party area,on a long weekend with jet boats and young guys with the stereos cranked and all sorts of goings on,they have zero tolerance for any booze.

Couple guys out fishing,bothering no one-they don't even bat an eye at a cooler with a six pack and a couple missing.

Agreed. Don’t be an ass, don’t attract attention to yourself or bother others, and the water cops are unlikely to give your boat a second look. The restrictive laws and regulations really have been brought in to address the idiots in zippy boats who can’t or won’t give a damn about anyone else.

[CaptFrankM]

OK, so no dog in the fight, either way. Just an observation. So, it seems to me that there are 3 possible positions being thrown around here. 1-No alcohol at all. 2-Drink all you want. 3-A drink or two at the end of the day is OK.


But, the original issue was that the BAC of 0.05 in Queensland was a "bad thing." Much like the 0.08 in most of the US is a "bad thing."


Now, I got curious - exactly how many drinks is 0.05 BAC or 0.08, for that matter. Because if the level is set there, that means the idea of "no drinking" is not the legal point. Now, if 1 drink would get you to 0.08/0.05, then obviously it does mean "no drinking." But does it?


So I went out and looked at some of the BAC on-line, since I have no idea what my BAC would be - never having had to blow into the little machine. Here's what I see - suppose I had two mixed drinks (Gin and Tonics, maybe) in an hour. I am a 270 pound male. According to what I am seeing, that would make my BAC about 0.018 - well under the 0.05 level.


Suppose instead that I had the same number of drinks but I weighed only 135 pounds. Now, that would get me to 0.052 - or just over the Queensland limit.


A six pack of beer in an hour would get me to 0.10 - but that would mean I was drinking a can of beer every 10 minutes - I don't think we are in social drinking anymore.


Bottom line - it seems to me that the problem that most people are complaining about - the limit - is one that they would never meet if they were actually drinking in the way they say they are - one or two drinks over an hour at the end of the day.


Would two drinks impair your ability to operate? Yes, undoubtedly. That's why most of us drink alcohol, because of the pleasant effect it has on the brain. Would it render you incapable of acting effectively in an emergency? Probably not - or at least no more than missing a few hours of sleep or staring into the sun for several hours while the boat pounds along into a head sea.


Is the complaint really about the fact that someone else has made a rule for you that you don't like? HHHHHHMMMMMMMM....could be.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CaptFrankM

Now, I got curious - exactly how many drinks is 0.05 BAC or 0.08, for that matter. Because if the level is set there, that means the idea of "no drinking" is not the legal point. Now, if 1 drink would get you to 0.08/0.05, then obviously it does mean "no drinking." But does it?

Most guidelines say that limiting it to one standard drink an hour keeps the average adult male under the .05.

A can/stubbie of mid-strength beer is about 1 standard drink.

One drink an hour. 24 hours in a day. 24 beers in a carton. Co-incidence?

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by StuM

Most guidelines say that limiting it to one standard drink an hour keeps the average adult male under the .05.

A can/stubbie of mid-strength beer is about 1 standard drink.

One drink an hour. 24 hours in a day. 24 beers in a carton. Co-incidence?

The guideline taught in the Publican game was three standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour thereafter. Some bureaucrat probably tried to legislate against staying up too long, but couldn't meet the standard of proof. So that would be two baker's dozens plus one for the first 24 hours.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’d love to see your source BM. When I searched for most litigious countries the best I came up with was this paper posted on Elements Worldwide, a large international insurance provider. They state that the top 5 most litigious countries per capita are:

1. Germany: 123.2/1,000
2. Sweden: 111.2/1,000
3. Israel: 96.8/1,000
4. Austria: 95.9/1,000
5. U.S.: 74.5/1,000

The Top 10 also includes the UK (64.4); Denmark (62.5); Hungary (52.4); Portugal (40.7); and France (40.3).

Neither Australia nor Canada make this list, so I’m curious about your source.

Your info is probably correct as no sane Australian ever goes near a lawyer if they can help it. However many Australians will threaten you with litigation at the drop of a hat, "I'm gunna sue you you bastard" is very commonly heard.

Folks who get drunk and regularly fall overboard tend not to be a long term problem in most of Queensland.

Coopers Ultralight is a pretty good tasting ale and at less than one half percent it takes a fair few of them to get to .05.

If you really insist on getting blind drunk in Queensland you can always go out beyond the twelve mile limit and heave too.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Your info is probably correct as no sane Australian ever goes near a lawyer if they can help it. However many Australians will threaten you with litigation at the drop of a hat, "I'm gunna sue you you bastard" is very commonly heard.

Too true, and not just in Oz. Here in Canada as well . It’s a sign of the times I guess. It seems that the first thing we do when bad things happen is to look for someone else to blame. Personal responsibility seems to be a passé concept these days.

Not surprisingly, there seemed to be a relationship between the number of lawyers operating in a country, and liability costs borne by each country. Certainly not saying all lawsuits are wrong. Sometimes it really is someone else’s fault, and they should pay. But too often it seems litigation, or the mere threat of litigation, is more like extortion. People end up paying b/c the cost to settle is cheaper than the cost to fight.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Folks who get drunk and regularly fall overboard tend not to be a long term problem in most of Queensland.

Yes … it should be a problem that takes care of itself . I’m somewhat Darwinian on this kind of thing. In cases when the person is solely or mostly putting only themselves at risk (like sailing off in a small boat, for example ), I think there should be few or no legal restrictions. One of the tenants of a free society should be the freedom to do stupid things, as long as we don’t significantly harm others in the doing.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Coopers Ultralight is a pretty good tasting ale and at less than one half percent it takes a fair few of them to get to .05.

I’ll take your word for it. For me, any beer with term “light” is code for no taste, but to each his own .

[donradcliffe]

[QUOTE=mottseng;2268238]

Originally Posted by fatherchronica

I really don't drink much anymore, but I have seen Canadians falling off their boats in Mexico.

How do you know they were Canadian? Did you ask them or are you making a judgmental assumption? Were they falling off their boat because they were drunk or just going for a swim while at anchor?

You really don't know do you?

You may think we don't know, but not only do Canadians talk funny and dress funny, but THEIR BOAT HAS THIS FLAG WITH A MAPLE LEAF HANGING FROM THE STARBOARD SPREADER.

One of the best traditions in cruising is getting together on another boat in the anchorage for Sundowners. Long term cruisers know its BYOB, and if its advertised as 'heavy hor d'oeuvres' you don't plan on having dinner too. These parties occur all over the world, even in Nanny states, and no one is particularly concerned about the local rules.

[CaptFrankM]

Not to go too far off of the original thread (hah - good luck with that!),


It strikes me that, in a society with fewer laws, there would be more lawyers. The advantage of having these "nanny" laws is that, in many cases, they prevent bad things from happening. Now, that is not saying that they prevent someone from drinking too much. No law can do that.


But, let us say that the nice water police officer sees a boat being operated in a dangerous manner (going too fast, swerving excessively, etc.). He stops the boat and talks to the operator.


In a state with no "legal BAC limit," the police officer observes the person and gives them a ticket. He may be able to cite them for reckless endangerment or some such. Then, the boater - who may or may not have been swizzled - goes out and gets a lawyer. That lawyer then goes to court and brings in five character witnesses that claim that the boater is a tee-totaler who never touched a drop and the cop just had it in for him. Now, after this happens two or three times, the local prosecutor has to beef up her staff because she has got to keep going into court to fight the drunks' lawyers - or the cop gets tired of writing tickets and seeing the "poor, innocent boater" getting off because of his lawyer.


So, next we have the same boater going out and getting swizzled again - only this time he runs over a boatload of little kiddies. Is he going to go peacefully into the good night? No way! He's going to hire a bunch of lawyers - because now he not only has to defend himself against the local prosecutor, he has a boatload of lawyers from all of those dead kiddies families coming after him.


Lawyer explosion.


Now, let's say that instead - on the first stop - the cop pulls out his handy, dandy breathalyzer and tells the boater where to blow. The little wheel spins around and pops up at .12 - since the law says anything over 0.08 is "Boating Under the Influence," the nice police officer takes the swizzled boater off the boat and to the local tank d'drunk - and hauls his boat in for questioning.


If the boater goes to court to fight the ticket, all the cop has to say is "your honor, he blew a 0.12." Case closed. Much better to settle and pay the fine (and lose your license, but oh, well).


Suppose that the guy doesn't get caught the first time - instead, he plows through the boatload of kiddies. The water police show up and get the swizzle to blow into the BAC machine and, once again, BOOM, case closed. "You were drunk, you killed those kids - do not pass go, do not collect $200."


Now, suppose the first time the guy gets stopped, the NPO gets him to blow into the BAC meter and it pops up as 0.03 - well, the guy may be a little loopy, but his bad boating is not the result of impairment - the guy is just generally an ass...he gets a ticket and a warning to slow down and be more careful.


Just a thought...

[markpierce]

Whatever happened to the maritime practice (civilian and military) of daily rum/beer/wine rations for officers and crew?

[UNCIVILIZED]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Whatever happened to the maritime practice (civilian and military) of daily rum/beer/wine rations for officers and crew?

1) The rum trade ended.
2) Press gangs ended.
3) Colonial Empires ended.
4) Navy's went PC (sadly).

[CHAZ]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

You may think we don't know, but not only do Canadians talk funny and dress funny, but THEIR BOAT HAS THIS FLAG WITH A MAPLE LEAF HANGING FROM THE STARBOARD SPREADER.

One of the best traditions in cruising is getting together on another boat in the anchorage for Sundowners. Long term cruisers know its BYOB, and if its advertised as 'heavy hor d'oeuvres' you don't plan on having dinner too. These parties occur all over the world, even in Nanny states, and no one is particularly concerned about the local rules.

Them are Canadaniens with that starvboard spreaded leaf, n'est pas?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

1) The rum trade ended.
2) Press gangs ended.
3) Colonial Empires ended.
4) Navy's went PC (sadly).

Yes but I am sure that with all our new found liberalism sodomy and the lash are coming back into fashion.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by brianlara 3

I'd agree Thomm, I think that a couple of drinks a day is sooo healthy.

Actually, it is and especially if you exercise.

A few beers after your weekly stretching routine, 3 mile run, pull ups, and pushups go quite nicely.

I supplied you with the link above supporting this but you ignored it because it was counter to your own opinion

[GordMay]

The probability of being involved in a traffic accident is directly proportional to time spent on the road. Driving fast decreases one’s exposure.

One third of traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers; so two thirds are caused by non-drunk drivers.

Therefore, the safest way to drive, is DRUNK and VERY FAST.