This one study suggests it does not, and having read the study’s abstract, the authors are less confident in their findings than you are. Maybe it’s because they weren’t jonesing for their next drink when they wrote the article.
We might be getting different drinks, but generally bartenders at good places aren’t going to give you their recipes. Especially if it’s because you intend to only make it yourself and never buy it there. 
And that’s aside from the idea that there are some ingredients which don’t make sense for the home bar to have, but perfect sense for a bar to have because it will sell enough of it to make it worthwhile. Want a good Last Word? Gotta buy a good gin at around $50. Then you need green chartreusse, which is 50 bucks a bottle, and Maraschino liqueur, at $25. So you’re $125 into it in order to make one recipe when you could just spend $10 and get it made by someone who’s better at it than you anyway.
You’re right it is, which is why it’s a good thing that I didn’t do that. You are the one who said:
and
Well, look. If I want to try the drink that they just came up with at the distillery taproom, then no, I can’t wait until I get home because they will not give me the recipe, nor will they give me the small-batch adds they use in it because they didn’t make enough to sell it commercially. I have to try it there. This does not mean that I have a “drinking problem” or that I am an addict.
If you don’t want people to object to your broad generalizations, use more precise terminology so that your comments are neither broad nor generalized.
Okay, let’s do a though experiment and pretend popular drink recipes aren’t published in books and online, and let’s pretend you don’t already know the ingredients of your favorite drinks. If you do the calculations on what you pay for each drink you buy, you come out ahead buying the ingredients on a per-drink basis.
With all that in mind, all I see here is rationalizing driving a car while impaired by alcohol. Nothing you’ve said is reason to not catch a ride home once you’re impaired.
An addict can rationalize just about anything, including putting others at risk, and you’ve given us a textbook example of what that looks like.
Probably has a lot to do with how much you drink on average. I don’t drink much, but sometimes during the summer after 18 holes I’ll have a cold one. Based on my body-mass - I’d need at least 4 of them to put me at .08%. But after 2 beers I can feel it and my driving is probably effected (thus why I won’t drive after 2 beers unless I wait a while).
This argument is going off the tracks and reminds me of two outrageous traffic accidents and the legal system’s judgement. A year or so ago a young Dukes of Hazard wannabe added nitrous to his muscle car and while test driving it an off duty highway patrol officer who lived nearby turned on his blue lights but was unable to catch up and crashed resulting in him dying. Then just months ago a soccer mom driving home in her SUV was speeding when a school bus stopped and a child stepped out as the soccer mom was passing on the shoulder killing the child. In the first instance the Duke boy who wasn’t even in sight of the accident was found guilty of DEPRAVE HEART MURDER and sentenced to 20~ years while the soccer mom wasn’t even indicted. Ain’t that some outrageous justice.
Because that’s what you want to see. I never said I was impaired. I am not impaired when I drive home an hour after having one drink with a meal.
As can an overzealous fearmonger, of which you have kindly provided us an example.
Is it fear mongering to point out that the price of a taxi is a reasonable and responsible alternative to drinking and driving?
That looks more like common sense than fear mongering.
On the bright side, I have a definitive answer to “Can’t you wait until you get home to get your fix, like the rest of the world’s functioning addicts?”
One of us clearly can’t wait.
If you think people need to get a cab because they had 2 ounces of alcohol, with a full meal, an hour before they drive, yes, it’s absolutely fearmongering.
That’s the third time you have insinuated I have a drinking problem, and you’re going to make it the last time or we’ll be taking this up with our friendly moderator.
I guess you forgot that the question that started this conversation and roused your anger was “Can’t you wait until you get home to get your fix, like the rest of the world’s functioning addicts?”
Other than your responses to that question, I’ve seen no indication that you have a drinking problem.
Some folks have such easy answers. I have one glass of wine a month at a monthly social meeting. That’s about it, so I’m not defending myself, and I voted for conviction when faced with the issue. But in large portions of Minnesota there simply is no taxi service and there are no public buses or trains. Of course there is little traffic too so not likely to hit anything on the way home. But you can’t just assume that everyone lives in a place like Boston. And walking is not an issue when the nearest place is ten miles away and it’s 20 below out. And don’t forget in the eyes of the law, using your lawn mower, horse, or motorized Lazy Boy is the same as driving a car.
As a Truck driver here in the states. I can’t have more the a .01% while if you are not a truck driver the allow .08% other words if i was to smell a wine cork i could be nailed for drunk driving, and it don’t matter if i am in a Commercial truck or my own car. Myself i think they should drop it down like this. Right now as it stands you could also get a DUI for cough medicine so it wouldn’t matter if you blew a .05 and you had that in your system they will nail you for it.
Mississippi was a hold out on prohibition, the entire state was DRY until the late 60s… EXCEPT for a ‘wink and nod’ under the table deal where the state taxed 3.2% beer which was sold in country clubs, VFWs and Legion Huts across the state. In 1965 the highest paid elected politician in the US was in Mississippi
the efforts of teetotalers continues in several Mississippi counties though, as it does in several other states but obviously outlawing booze is a lost cause. Before Mississippi went wet there were 3 bootleggers within a few miles of my home and I often saw the town’s chief of police drinking a cold Falstaff at the Legion Hut with my dad back in the ‘dry’ years. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that prohibition could ever work. And the best we can hope for is reasonable enforcement of DUI laws to discourage mayhem on the roads.
Only if you’re on public roads. On your own property they can’t touch you.
Is it though? Dry counties tend to have lower homeless populations, although dry counties and cities don’t have lower crime rates or lower DUI rates. Strategic banning of alcohol sales can be an effective way to keep the homeless population in one part of town, close to rescue missions and soup kitchens and away from residential neighborhoods in well-zoned cities.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like that because it depends on what you hope to achieve. In general, I agree drug prohibition is not the best way to solve problems. It attacks the supply while ignoring demand. Taking all the money we spend on prohibition of illicit drugs and putting it into education and rehabilitation would accomplish a lot more.
I’ll quickly admit that I don’t see a magic bullet answer to the DUI problem, @Whitey, but I do recognize that alcohol has been a part of human culture since prehistoric times and like sex there won’t be any success at abstinence efforts.
Is that due to the county/town being dry or the fact that most if not all dry counties/towns have small populations?
There might be Uber or Lyft services there. People driving for these services do it as a second job, and that might make it a successful service in your area.
The situation with Utah is somewhat obvious.
But speaking of addiction, there’s just so much these days that falls into the realm of addiction/obsession that it would seem that the vast majority of Americans suffer/enjoy a weakness of some kind.
I’ve not seen any proof that such a correlation exists, and the only dry area I’ve ever lived in was in Dallas. If you lived in Oak Cliff (a part of Dallas) in the 1980s, you had to drive all the way downtown to buy alcohol, which I’m sure led to more DUIs, but it also effectively kept the winos downtown and out of the outlying parts of Dallas and the suburbs.
As of 2010, most of Dallas was still dry.