Alcohol, accidents, effects on family and social life, lives getting spoiled

[jackson6612]

I know someone whose life has been badly affected because his father is a drunkard. That is one the reasons I'm against alcohol because I've seen it with my own eyes how it affects others' lives. There are too many accidents because people drive while drunk. Many other crimes also stem out of this bad habit such as negligence of a spouse and children in general. I've seen teenagers becoming addicted to it and spoiling their lives. Besides this, it's not good for one's own health. I'm also against smoking because you're not only your own life but also of your loved ones. If you go through they're also going t be affected. And if you are smoking in some closed place such as a bus you're simply also forcing others to take small doses of poison with you. Why isn't there some kind of campaign against alcohol too? Please let me make it clear that in no way I'm making a point that someone who is involved in drinking habit is a morally corrupt person. It's just a bad habit.

Please let me hear your opinions on this. Please let this discussion to be productive and thoughtful. Thanks.

 

[Danger]

I'm too tired right now to enter into a discussion, but will do so after some rest. In basic principle I agree with you to some large extent. Conversely, I am an alcoholic and a smoker with terminal emphysema. Both of those criteria require some lengthy explanation, which will have to wait.

 

[jackson6612]

Hi Danger

Many of us are involved in some kind of bad habits in one way or another. That does not mean we are ourselves bad or morally corrupt but when someone goes on to defend 'bad' habits then that does make us bad and irrational. I have lot of respect of respect for many of my acquaintances who are chain smokers. The 'very' good thing about them is that they accept that it's a bad thing and they're working on to get rid of it although many of them have been saying this for last many years.

Thanks.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm unwilling to give up my occasional glass of wine (which is http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9626.php, see any of various studies) just because some people can't handle it. Similarly, I'm unwilling to give up my house even though some people have ruined the economy through purchasing them when they couldn't afford it, nor to give up food even though obesity is a huge health problem in my country.

 

[jackson6612]

Yes, CR, you are right about small quantities. But for many of them those small quantities could turn into an addiction. I don't think one light cigarette daily would cause any more harm than drinking 2L of cola drink. But for many of them that one could lead to a habit. When speaking in social terms, I won't say that it's okay to say that if I can handle it, then it's okay for someone else too . One should condemn it in every measure.

BTW, could you please let me know of some other 'harmful' things which are beneficial in small quantities but could lead to an addiction?

 

[Danger]

BTW, could you please let me know of some other 'harmful' things which are beneficial in small quantities but could lead to an addiction?

The first thing that comes to mind is prescription pharmaceuticals. I'm still not rested, and not ready to converse, but I felt obliged to answer that one.

 

[Jack21222]

While I agree with everything you say, OP, I would vehemently oppose any effort to ban alcohol or tobacco. A government ban would be far more harmful to society than the alcohol itself.

Cases in point: Prohibition and the current War on Drugs

 

[jackson6612]

While I agree with everything you say, OP, I would vehemently oppose any effort to ban alcohol or tobacco. A government ban would be far more harmful to society than the alcohol itself.

Cases in point: Prohibition and the current War on Drugs

I agree with you. Yes, bans could reverse the situations. Only public awareness and social understanding and collaboration can make a difference. Though, governmental regulation is also important. In many Muslim countries alcohol is banned but I have read it is still prevalent in major sections of the society. Recently I was surprised after reading an article that claimed most porn related searches originate from Muslim countries where such kind of things are banned. What is this called? Religious hypocrisy? That's why I say every man has his own personal religion. He picks the cherries he likes!

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material/

 

[BobG]

While I agree with everything you say, OP, I would vehemently oppose any effort to ban alcohol or tobacco. A government ban would be far more harmful to society than the alcohol itself.

Cases in point: Prohibition and the current War on Drugs

For some reason, that seems to be considered a given - that prohibition was worse than the alcohol itself, but is that really true? What happened to organized crime when prohibition was repealed? Did it dry up for lack of an illegal product to sell?

Prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption and it had a lasting effect. Prohibition ended in 1933, but alcohol consumption rates didn't reach the pre-World War I rates until the 60's.

Except that's deceiving, too.

Many countries tried to reduce alcohol consumption around the same time as the US. Few resorted to prohibition (US and Finland being notable examples). Most resorted to increased regulation of the alcohol industry, pretty much consistent with the entire movement to eliminate unregulated drugs (for example - the elimination of the patent drug salesman, who was essentially a drug dealer who just kept the actual ingredients of his medicines secret).

Increased regulation worked as well as prohibition with fewer of the undesired side effects. In other words, the myth that prohibition didn't work has a little bit of truth to it, but with conditions - a more accurate statement is that it didn't work as well as other measures. Likewise, people copy ideas that work and the US switched to increased regulation of the alcohol industry post-prohibition to continue getting pretty much the same results prohibition did. In other words, prohibition itself probably didn't have a lasting effect. It was the regulations that replaced prohibition that had an effect.

Of course, alcohol consumption is an even worse problem now than it was when prohibition was instituted. Alcohol consumption peaked around 1980 and has been declining ever since, but it's still a serious problem (an even greater problem in European countries, as the US only ranks 20th worldwide in alcohol consumption). http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/foo-food

When the problems with alcohol consumption are big enough and aren't controlled by current regulation, then I think prohibition goes back on the table as a valid solution. Perhaps prohibition isn't something to be considered yet, since many of the problems, such as drunk driving, have also been decreasing since the late 70's/early 80's. In other words, some of the problems might be in process of being corrected by other means, but it's definitely a big enough problem for people to be concerned about.

 

[Jack21222]

For some reason, that seems to be considered a given - that prohibition was worse than the alcohol itself, but is that really true? What happened to organized crime when prohibition was repealed? Did it dry up for lack of an illegal product to sell?

Organized crime just moved on to other prohibited products, like drugs, gambling, and prostitution (all of which I think should be legal for the same reasons as alcohol).

My sister was shot in the neck and paralyzed three years ago by some drug dealer getting rich off of the war on drugs. She's lucky, many people would have simply died. To me, that's FAR worse than an increase in people losing their job because they're addicted to heroin.

 

[BobG]

Alcohol is legal and results in about 85,000 deaths a year. Illegal drugs, even accounting for drug trafficking violence, results in about 17,000 deaths a year. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

I don't think that's a clean comparison because I think there's some somewhat static market for intoxication. In other words, having at least one legal intoxicant tends to decrease illegal drug use.

On the other hand, a great deal of the illegal drug deaths are due to trafficking violence. Would creating another illegal drug (alcohol) actually increase trafficking violence? Probably, since the market for illegal drugs (including alcohol) would be larger, but probably not as much as one would think since a lot of the violence is simply to control the supply chain, not to actually deliver the goods.

 

[dav2008]

Yes, CR, you are right about small quantities. But for many of them those small quantities could turn into an addiction. I don't think one light cigarette daily would cause any more harm than drinking 2L of cola drink. But for many of them that one could lead to a habit. When speaking in social terms, I won't say that it's okay to say that if I can handle it, then it's okay for someone else too . One should condemn it in every measure.

BTW, could you please let me know of some other 'harmful' things which are beneficial in small quantities but could lead to an addiction?

Well then maybe those people shouldn't be drinking alcohol?

 

[BobG]

My sister was shot in the neck and paralyzed three years ago by some drug dealer getting rich off of the war on drugs. She's lucky, many people would have simply died. To me, that's FAR worse than an increase in people losing their job because they're addicted to heroin.

Well, that's a given. Losing your job isn't as severe as being paralyzed or losing your life regardless of the reason.

Is it far worse than someone dying of an overdose of heroin?

Or is it worse than a person driving home from work being paralyzed when his car is struck by a drunk driver?

You could legitimately argue that the person dying of an overdose died because of his own mistakes and that's not as bad as an innocent bystander being injured or killed by a drug dealer. Arguing about the effects of alcohol abuse and drunk driving is a little more problematic.

Full disclosure: Just as your viewpoint is probably biased as a result of your sister's experience, mine is biased by the years spent living with an alcoholic before finally divorcing.

 

[BobG]

Well then maybe those people shouldn't be drinking alcohol?

This is a good point. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, only 46.5% of 21 to 25 year olds engage in heavy drinking or binge drinking (5 or more drinks at a sitting). These are the people that should voluntarily refrain from drinking. Taking some kind of government action, such as raising the drinking age, would be unfair to the 23% of 21 to 25 year olds that drink responsibly.

While 21 to 25 year olds may the worst abusers, it takes until the mid-30's before responsible drinkers start to outnumber alcohol abusers.

http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9ResultsP.pdf (you have to scroll all the way down to page 30 to get to the alcohol statistics)

 

[Jack21222]

Well, that's a given. Losing your job isn't as severe as being paralyzed or losing your life regardless of the reason.

Is it far worse than someone dying of an overdose of heroin?

Or is it worse than a person driving home from work being paralyzed when his car is struck by a drunk driver?

You could legitimately argue that the person dying of an overdose died because of his own mistakes and that's not as bad as an innocent bystander being injured or killed by a drug dealer. Arguing about the effects of alcohol abuse and drunk driving is a little more problematic.

Full disclosure: Just as your viewpoint is probably biased as a result of your sister's experience, mine is biased by the years spent living with an alcoholic before finally divorcing.

My opinion on the drug war predates my sister's injury, and I'm willing to bet everything in my wallet that I spent more years than you did living with an alcoholic. (Luckily, I don't have much in my wallet if I'm wrong :tongue:).

I'm too lazy to do the research on this at the moment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I suspect that more people are hurt or killed by organized crime than are hurt or killed by drunk drivers.

Even if the numbers are identical, there is the issue of the cost of enforcement. Let's say it's equally bad for government policies to ban an activity and to not ban an activity. Banning the activity costs money in enforcement, where not banning the activity doesn't.

(Alright, I just did some very rudimentary research, there were over 11k alcohol-impaired fatalities in the US in 2008, and over 16k homicides. Not all alcohol-impaired fatalities involved another person, and not all homicides are gang related, so those numbers are probably meaningless. Plus, I maintain that gang-related homicides would drop sharply with the legalization of the things mentioned above, and I feel the number of impaired drivers would increase only slightly. It would take a LOT more research to get at better numbers, so take the above statements as opinion, not fact)

 

[Danger]

The PF membership proves itself once again. This is far and away the most civilized discussion of a normally-contentious topic that I've ever encountered. I've changed my mind about participating myself, because I'm too fascinated by the various viewpoints being expressed.

 

[mugaliens]

I'm unwilling to give up my occasional glass of wine (which is http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9626.php, see any of various studies) just because some people can't handle it. Similarly, I'm unwilling to give up my house even though some people have ruined the economy through purchasing them when they couldn't afford it, nor to give up food even though obesity is a huge health problem in my country.

Having read through the entire thread to date, I keep coming back to your post, CRGreathouse, as it pinpoints the crux of the issue: "Everything in moderation." A modern-day corollary might be, "If not in moderation, then best not at all."

That corollary, however, is only valid if applied individually.

ETA: (pending further review)

Yes, CR, you are right about small quantities. But for many of them those small quantities could turn into an addiction.

For some, but not for most. Efforts towards prohibition because some may become addicted to alcohol illigitimately curb the rights of the majority who're not similarly prone.

One should condemn it in every measure.

Let's see... Sunshine is addictive for some. So's exercise, sex, chattiness, Internet usage (chat rooms; message forums (Gasp! That's us!)... by your logic let's condemn sunshine, exercise, sex, conversation, and the internet, to mention but a few of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of activities and/or substances to which some humans might become addicted.

What's next? Outlaw everything which might be addictive to humans? That's a very extreme position. But what about the opposite side - must we allow unfettered access to every possible addictive substance or activity? Oxycodone and heroine are much more addictive than alcohol for the average person (68% of the population) yet alcohol can be as or more addictive for those 32% who're genetically or environmentally prone to alcoholism.

I have an idea: Let's outlaw every form of food except for fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as moderate amounts of meat. Let's recreate Terra Firma circa 500,000 B.C., long before mankind began adding spices to food, much less brewing mead, whose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead" .

But wait... There's evidence mankind has been storing (inadvertantly fermenting) vegan matter for longer than 100,000 years.

It's a conundrum, no doubt about it!

 

[jackson6612]

The PF membership proves itself once again. This is far and away the most civilized discussion of a normally-contentious topic that I've ever encountered. I've changed my mind about participating myself, because I'm too fascinated by the various viewpoints being expressed.

Hi Dan

Perhaps, the credit for this goes to me because I framed the starting point in such a balanced way!

 

[Danger]

Hi Dan

Perhaps, the credit for this goes to me because I framed the starting point in such a balanced way!

No argument there.

 

[JaredJames]

Alcohol use, as with a lot of things comes down to individuals.

On average, I go out drinking once a month. It may be a few beers or I might get totally sh*t faced. (Although now I think about it, it's been well over 2 months to date, hmm.)

Either way, it's not enough for me to become addicted (I do it just to go out an have a laugh / be social. A nice night out if you will.) and even when I'm completely blotto I'm a happy, constantly laughing drunk. I'm quite happy to get some grub, jump in a taxi and head home. Never cause any trouble.

Although I don't need to drink, I do enjoy those nights out. To ban alcohol would pretty much kill that off for me and it wouldn't give me any benefit.

I found something interesting out yesterday, it's illegal in the UK to serve a drunk person alcohol. So you could say there are laws in place to avoid people 'going too far' whilst out. The problem is that I'm yet to come across a pub that adheres to this law. I've literally been using my mate to stand up in the past and they've still served me.

One thing I will say, the UK government is currently looking at making drunks pay for any medical treatment due tthey receive simply because they are so drunk (if it's not their fault it doesn't count). I think this is a good thing. They spend millions at the moment treating drunks because they've got into a fight or simply had far too much.

Instead of trying to ban alcohol or tax it to hell and back (which they currently do), they should be looking to put deterrents in place such as:

If you're caught drunk driving, you instantly lose your license.
Any hospital treatment that you require due to you being so drunk/having drank to extremes, you must pay for.
Any person causing trouble because they are so drunk either has a large fine + community service or goes to prison for a year.
etc

I know they seem harsh, but people would get the message. At the moment, get drunk, jump in your car, get pulled over, three points + small fine, on your way. Perhaps a slight insurance increase. It just doesn't act as a deterrent.

 

[Danger]

I found something interesting out yesterday, it's illegal in the UK to serve a drunk person alcohol.

Having professionally tended bar for over 20 years, I can assure you that the same law applies in Alberta. (Each province has it's own rules.) It is enforced, however, only if the individual constitutes a threat to his own safety or that of others. (Or if a Liquor Board inspector is on site.) I have strolled into all of my local bars (within walking distance of home) after consuming a couple of dozen beers, and been served a dozen more. If the waitress or bartender tells me that I've had enough, I agree and go home.

 

[jackson6612]

For some, but not for most. Efforts towards prohibition because some may become addicted to alcohol illigitimately curb the rights of the majority who're not similarly prone.

Let's see... Sunshine is addictive for some. So's exercise, sex, chattiness, Internet usage (chat rooms; message forums (Gasp! That's us!)... by your logic let's condemn sunshine, exercise, sex, conversation, and the internet, to mention but a few of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of activities and/or substances to which some humans might become addicted.

What's next? Outlaw everything which might be addictive to humans? That's a very extreme position. But what about the opposite side - must we allow unfettered access to every possible addictive substance or activity? Oxycodone and heroine are much more addictive than alcohol for the average person (68% of the population) yet alcohol can be as or more addictive for those 32% who're genetically or environmentally prone to alcoholism.

I have an idea: Let's outlaw every form of food except for fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as moderate amounts of meat. Let's recreate Terra Firma circa 500,000 B.C., long before mankind began adding spices to food, much less brewing mead, whose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead" .

But wait... There's evidence mankind has been storing (inadvertantly fermenting) vegan matter for longer than 100,000 years.

It's a conundrum, no doubt about it!

Hi Mugaliens

I never like extreme position. I didn't attend to say that everything leading to some kind of addiction should be banned. I agree with many of the points.

Many of my friends and acquaintances take alcohol. I have no problems with them. I have seen most of the time while discussing such issues people get involved in morality vs. immorality debate where some consider one thing moral and others moral. That's a wrong approach, IMHO. I have already listed some of the reasons why I think there should be some kind of awareness campaign about alcohol related issues. By the way, please keep in mind I'm an English so I have hard time framing my statements even then they don't convey myself as I would want them.

If you and many like you know how to consume or take something in moderation, then that doesn't mean everyone else is supposed to be that wise. Some days ago I started a thread on appropriate age when one reaches maturity. I have observed many of the persons even between 20 and 25 are not that much wise in taking some decisions. Now I'm not discussing 'how wise someone is' in a general way. It's not a blanket term here. One could be a genius in mathematics but that doesn't make one a genius in every field. Perhaps, one really needs care of one's loved ones and family in other parts. The problem with alcohol and related things is that it affects lives in very different way. You could smoke a pack a cigarettes and could still carry out all the activities although one is risking the remaining years of one's life for a pleasure of some moments which is being disloyal to your friends, children who needs you more than anyone else, wife, parents. Besides you are setting a bad example for others to follow. If I'm an alcoholic addict and it doesn't really affect my personal in any important way, then should I say it's okay. Perhaps, the kid or some teenager living next door could also get involved in such a habit.

A friend of my friend was really good in his studies but when he was in second year of his degree, he really got addicted to alcohol, though he has been smoking cigarettes since school days. This alcohol ****ed his life in such a way, he never was able to proceed to his third year and then... forget it. Personally speaking, I don't like those pleasures which could affect my surrounding human beings in such a bad way. My religion is humanity, equality, struggle to free the world from pain and suffering. I hope you would understand what I'm trying to say.

Best wishes
Jack

 

[JaredJames]

Having professionally tended bar for over 20 years, I can assure you that the same law applies in Alberta. (Each province has it's own rules.) It is enforced, however, only if the individual constitutes a threat to his own safety or that of others. (Or if a Liquor Board inspector is on site.) I have strolled into all of my local bars (within walking distance of home) after consuming a couple of dozen beers, and been served a dozen more. If the waitress or bartender tells me that I've had enough, I agree and go home.

Oh certainly, if someone is really out of it they do refuse to serve you, but it's not really because of the law where I drink, it's more down to the fact you look like sh*t and they don't think you should have any more.

I've got to be honest though, unless I'm completely out of it (we're talking a real heavy night - once a year kind of affair at christmas) I'm pretty good. I can walk / stand normally and hold a coherent conversation. I've never been turned away for being too drunk (whether at the bar or by the door staff). I don't 'look' drunk.

If someone ever does tell me I've had enough, I would leave (well, unless one of my mates is looking better than me and could possibly pass for ok. )

 

[JaredJames]

he really got addicted to alcohol, though he has been smoking cigarettes since school days.

I must question, was it really the alcohol?

I know it sounds silly, but you don't just suddenly become addicted to alcohol, this isn't like with heroin where one dose is all it takes.

Based on the fact it was specifically his second year, is that when he started going out and drinking? What changed (aside from drinking) in his second year?

I ask because it appears to me to sound like a case of someone going out and partying for pretty much the first time and then getting hooked on it (the partying - or whatever reason they are drinking) and that having an effect on their studies.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but without more detail I'd say that is what it looks like to me.

 

[jackson6612]

Jared: Certainty there were other issues. I haven't pursued his life topic that much. But he didn't get addicted in one day. It could be amalgamation of different problems such personal issues, family issues, a breakup, etc. which pushed him into consuming more and more and ultimately ending up like...

 

[Danger]

It's always a toss-up. I finished my last half-dozen beers, and am almost through my first 26'er of Scotch. (There's a fresh one in the fridge.) Despite that, I still feel fairly coherent. (Anyone reading this might disagree.) I still try to express myself in friendly and non-threatening terms, but in person I am a bit more forceful in defending my opinions. I am never, however, a "mean drunk". I can be extremely unpleasant when sober, but I go out of my way to avoid that when alcohol is involved. Ah, crap... I'm a mutant. What more can I say?

 

[jackson6612]

Would please someone help me with this? I have faced this problem several times. I was replying to Mugaliens post #518 in this thread. When I quoted his post all the text of other members which he had quoted and commented on was gone. Only his commentary was available in my quoted text. Is there any way to include the post you are replying to in its entirety? Please help.

 

[JaredJames]

That's written better than most 'sober' posters Danger.

In my first year at uni, I just couldn't get my head around a few problems in thermodynamics that were coming up the next day in the exam (50% worth). So I gave up and decided to go for a few beers (didn't see the point in wasting any more time on it).

When I returned that night (somewhat drunk), I sat down and just spent a few minutes reading through it. It just started to all make sense and fit together.

I sat the exam and got 85%, was absolutely amazed.

 

[JaredJames]

Would please someone help me with this? I have faced this problem several times. I was replying to Mugaliens post #518 in this thread. When I quoted his post all the text of other members which he had quoted and commented on was gone. Only his commentary was available in my quoted text. Is there any way to include the post you are replying to in its entirety? Please help.

This is supposed to happen.

For one, it cuts post length down. You don't need to include everything and it gets messy very quickly.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think society needs to aim its Shame Stick at alcoholics and drunks. Society has shamed many types of people for decades. Why not some more?

Smoker who does a pack a day and smells like cigarettes? Society has shamed them into being people who are looked down upon.
Openly racist people? Shamed into obscurity for the most part.
Obese people? They're looked down upon increasingly.
Bigots? Shamed again for the most part.

Society is damn good at making it known that a certain lifestyle is unacceptable. I hope someday instead of the guy who gets drunk weekly and lives off his girlfriend will no longer be seen as "cool" or a "fun-loving" guy, he'll be seen like the smoker. Sure a drink here and there is fine, just like a cigarette here and there, but excessive consumption should be seen as a character flaw.

I remember a comedian had a hilarious joke about pizza vs. pie. He said when someone eats a whole pizza, people say "wow you were hungry", but when you eat a whole cake, they go "man, you have a problem...".

Actually here it is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o-u4IwXkbE

 

[Danger]

Two things to say to you, Flippered-One. First, that dude is one of my favourite comics from the Montreal Comedy Festival, but I've never seen that particular act before. Purely brilliant.
Secondly, it's a good thing that you belong to an Antarctic species, because the first part of your post would have you clubbed and deep-fried in my culture.

 

[JaredJames]

That's brilliant Peng. It's right though.

The problem we have (at least in the UK) is that even though the media and various organisations are pushing alochol and drunks as bad and trying to impose a negative stereotype on them, there are simply too many people who 'think it's cool' to go out and drink until you are sick.

It's like speeding, people know it's bad but they accept it.

I don't see being drunk as a problem. It's those who are a problem whilst drunk. As I said previously, the government would be better off targetting those people via means like those I proposed above as opposed to simply blanket targetting everyone and penalising those who do no wrong.

 

[Danger]

What I find very ironic (and more than a little disgusting) is that I lost my driver's license about 7 years ago when I was dead-sober. Try telling those buggers that you can't blow a breathalizer when you have emphysemia...

 

[BobG]

Instead of trying to ban alcohol or tax it to hell and back (which they currently do), they should be looking to put deterrents in place such as:

If you're caught drunk driving, you instantly lose your license.
Any hospital treatment that you require due to you being so drunk/having drank to extremes, you must pay for.
Any person causing trouble because they are so drunk either has a large fine + community service or goes to prison for a year.
etc

I know they seem harsh, but people would get the message. At the moment, get drunk, jump in your car, get pulled over, three points + small fine, on your way. Perhaps a slight insurance increase. It just doesn't act as a deterrent.

Actually, I like the trend a lot of the states in the US are moving toward. If a person is caught drunk driving, they get a breathalyzer in their car for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years (depending on the state and the circumstances). The drunk driver leases the breathalyzer, so it's not a cost to the government - it's just one of the extra expenses drunk drivers incur.

The driver has to pass the breathalyzer to start their car, plus the machine occasionally requires a rolling breathalyzer. In other words, while driving, the machine can start beeping while driving and the driver has about 2 or 3 minutes to take another breathalzyer or his car shuts off (the time lag is because taking a breathalzyer in the middle of an intersection or having your car shut off in the middle of an intersection could be a problem in itself).

I don't know how lasting the effect is on drivers, but it at least reduces the risk for the period of time they have the breathalyzer in their car.

That raises a whole new ethics scenario in some cases:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tluIQrEn72k

This one is even better from ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/mom-drunken-drive-10714090

(I like that whole "What Would You Do" series from ABC.)

 

[Danger]

I would be so screwed by an in-car breathalizer. As mentioned before, I can't blow into one without reading as impaired, even if I haven't had a drink in over a week. Secondly, it costs over $1,000 per month to lease one, and my Social Assistance income is $740 per month to cover non-essential items such as housing and groceries.