The ignorance of the value and status of science and clinical testing in that comment is so grand, I can only ascribe it to being completely misinformed, or just plain stubborn. Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
To compare the effects of a biological factor (alcoholic impairment) to a sociological phenomenon (black crime), and again to another sociological trend (people being in the mood to have sex), has absolutely no bearing in discrediting clinical research. Those things just don't compare to each other.
Ultimately, you have to choose which type of data you want, strictly practical, or clinical. The problem is, you've disagreed with the clinical results as not practical, then dismissed the practical results as inaccurate. But in the end, both point to the same fact. At a certain point, it seems the reality has pointed to a different conclusion that the one you've reached.
The bottom line is, alcohol effects ones ability to operate a motor vehicle. Having alcohol and driving puts you at a substantially higher risk of causing and accident, and an even higher risk of causing a fatal accident. Those things are undisputeable, they are clinically, and practically proven, thousands of times over. You're welcome to disagree, but if you do, I'm afraid you're in the unfortunate position of giving an ignorant opinion, because the facts don't back it up, and you're essentially then just propagating hearsay.
Apparently you ignored what I wrote or are too stubborn to acknowledge the value I attribute to tests and statistics that are determinative. I didn't use anything to discredit clinical research. I asserted all clinical tests and statistics are not equal in value. Only an ignorant or stubborn person would disagree with that.
100% of 100 people who consume alcohol will experience a physiological effect from doing so (determinable). But despite the evidence of such an effect, what will happen when they drive afterwards is not predictable (indeterminable). Now forget for a second whether or not you agree with those statements, do you even get the distinction they represent? Even in practice the number of those who have drank, driven then caused accidents is exceedingly low.
The reality
again is there are circumstances which naturally lend themselves to lab experimentation including statistics which generate reliable, useful conclusions and some that don't or can't. That's what I sought to demonstrate with the other two examples..not make some comparison between them.
The fact is, some ignorant people do use incarceration and recidivism statistics as a means to determine propensity to commit crime. After all, for those seeking to determine such a thing what else is there to go by? Never mind the fact that using those statistics to determine that is a method loaded with fault. Rightly or wrongly isn't that the point of something like "racial profiling"?
I tend to think something like that (propensity to commit crime) is indeterminable as it is circumstance based....like drinking and driving then causing an accident.
If the aggregate of all accidental vehicular deaths or accidents in general showed a consistency with excessive speed, why wouldn't that be the most significant factor under the same assumptions? Especially since some 93% of vehicular accidents don't involve alcohol?
I tend to accept statistics and studies from reputable sources but in all cases they should be put in context and you can only glean from them what they tell you.
You said,
"The bottom line is, alcohol effects ones ability to operate a motor vehicle. Having alcohol and driving puts you at a substantially higher risk of causing and accident..."
<chuckle>That is utterly untrue. What we know is alcohol in varying amounts
affects one's motor function to various degrees. While high enough amounts can render someone incapable of operating a vehicle in any manner, the effects of mere amounts (normally) have no critical affect on one's ability to start a vehicle, put it in gear, accelerate, steer it straight, left or right, brake, interpret the meanings of recognizable signs and signals or see hazards in plain view.
"..substantially higher risk.."??? How is the likelihood knowable absent data reflecting how many cases exist where people drive after having drank and didn't cause accidents? Wouldn't that be important to know in order to make such a claim?
In most cases studies of any type strive to link cause and effect in order to learn something. How can one conclude anything appreciable when cause-alcohol consumption and effect-traffic accidents are so inconsistent with one another as to almost bear no correlation? (No need to answer. Just a musing.)
Anyway, the horse is pulverized and my bat is broken. I appreciate the spirited but harmless debate and your input as always was interesting.
