[EA]

Originally Posted by lvoc

From an NIH study...

************************************
RESULTS—After 17-19 hours without sleep, corresponding to 2230 and 0100, performance on some tests was equivalent or worse than that at a BAC of 0.05%. Response speeds were up to 50% slower for some tests and accuracy measures were significantly poorer than at this level of alcohol. After longer periods without sleep, performance reached levels equivalent to the maximum alcohol dose given to subjects (BAC of 0.1%).
***********************************

Being old impairs many as well. You may or may not realize you are impaired. But you are.

I know 3 people, personally, who drink constantly and don't get drunk. One of them, is a man I have never seen without a beer in his hand, literally. When he drives, he puts it in a foam cup.
I watched him kill a 24 pack in about an hour, then run the pool table. He didn't even begin to stagger.
The point is, not everything effects everyone the same way.

[von949]

Originally Posted by lvoc

From an NIH study...

************************************
RESULTS—After 17-19 hours without sleep, corresponding to 2230 and 0100, performance on some tests was equivalent or worse than that at a BAC of 0.05%. Response speeds were up to 50% slower for some tests and accuracy measures were significantly poorer than at this level of alcohol. After longer periods without sleep, performance reached levels equivalent to the maximum alcohol dose given to subjects (BAC of 0.1%).
***********************************

Being old impairs many as well. You may or may not realize you are impaired. But you are.

I fall under DOT regulations with my current job and if I get caught driving or working too many hours without proper rest/sleep intervals, I will be fired. Already seen a half dozen guys get fired for thinking they can work 32 hours straight without any rest.

DOT has had to crack down on a lot of these guys blinded by the overtime pay. Usually dispatch will call us to let us know that we are near or over 14 hours, then it's mandatory nap time. Paid nap time I might add. I probably take about 10 hours worth of naps while on the clock. I'm not complaining.

[EA]

Put me in a car, around a safe test track, and measure my performance while being awake 20 hours, and then give me a couple beers. I'll do just fine tired.
I'll probably do just fine after the beer, but I'm not sure on that one. I lack the experience.
I was, however, made to drive home, while very drunk, by a cop.

[WannaliveinGreenville]

Originally Posted by EA

I know 3 people, personally, who drink constantly and don't get drunk. One of them, is a man I have never seen without a beer in his hand, literally. When he drives, he puts it in a foam cup.
I watched him kill a 24 pack in about an hour, then run the pool table. He didn't even begin to stagger.
The point is, not everything effects everyone the same way.

This man sounds like an alcoholic with a high tolerance

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by EA

I know 3 people, personally, who drink constantly and don't get drunk. One of them, is a man I have never seen without a beer in his hand, literally. When he drives, he puts it in a foam cup.
I watched him kill a 24 pack in about an hour, then run the pool table. He didn't even begin to stagger.
The point is, not everything effects everyone the same way.

Do you understand the difference between anecdote & data?

[EA]

Yes. However, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that there are exceptions to everything.

Example.

I can safely say "Dogs can't drive" despite the fact that there exists a few dogs who can drive. Their number is so small that they fall within the margin of error. They are an exception. The existence of these dogs does not prove that all dogs can drive nor do they negate the statement "Dogs can't drive."

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by EA

Yes. However, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that there are exceptions to everything.

Example.

I can safely say "Dogs can't drive" despite the fact that there exists a few dogs who can drive. Their number is so small that they fall within the margin of error. They are an exception. The existence of these dogs does not prove that all dogs can drive nor do they negate the statement "Dogs can't drive."

The fact that you think you can tell if you are impaired merely indicates that you are somewhat naive. You may feel that things are perfectly normal but a test would swiftly indicate lower performance. Hell even the initial performance may well be impaired.

There are some reports that pot users can tell they are impaired and compensate though no indication that the compensation can offset the impairment. This is as opposed to alcohol where the initial feeling is that one is fine.

The thing that is missing is the ability to tell whether an individual is impaired to a dangerous degree regardless of the cause. That would make the whole area much more rational. Get in your car or truck or cockpit and do a simple test. Comes up red or green.

I also suspect that many people develop the ability to sustain a quite high level of the various drugs legal and illegal with little or no impairment. But I would also suspect that the ones who think they can tolerate these conditions often can't.

I remember one afternoon when I was much younger and chased an annoying problem for 36 hours in a development laboratory. I suddenly realized that thing were moving which could not move. A couple of really fantastic hallucinations. Had my wife come and get me and slept 15 hours. I would have told you I was only a little tired until things began to move.

[EA]

Well, I won't get the chance to stay up that long, and drive any time soon. However, I would love the chance to be put to the test.

[Katie the heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by EA

Yes. However, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that there are exceptions to everything.

Example.

I can safely say "Dogs can't drive" despite the fact that there exists a few dogs who can drive. Their number is so small that they fall within the margin of error. They are an exception. The existence of these dogs does not prove that all dogs can drive nor do they negate the statement "Dogs can't drive."

I have to disagree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX3P_fcgtHM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiy9...4932B3&index=2

[ev780]

Originally Posted by SUPbud

Ladies and gentlemen,
this is an example of someone who does not understand how federal government works.

The feds will NEVER advocate/allow a scenario in which they have "less" power or influence vis-a-vis a individual state... it would be Historically Unprecedented.

Why don't you unfund and disband the federal Dept of Education or the Dept of Homeland Security while you are at it... bwaaa hahahha hahahaha

Make sure you know who you are accusing of not knowing the Federal Government before you mouth off on the internet.