Drinking alcohol - when is it enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter JacktheCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think people each have a conscience and can determine when they are “too drunk” without needing to blow into a tube and if it’s over a certain number then they’ve sinned.

If they have trouble figuring this out, maybe they have an alcohol problem and their family and friends need to intervene.
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
Why did Jesus turn water into wine, if we are not to drink?
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Jesus did this after everybody had been drinking at the wedding party for a while already. He didn’t just say, “Hey, everybody already had one glass, I won’t make more because it will just lead folks into sin.”

And then there’s all those monasteries that make the most awesome beers in the world…
 
Welshrabbit said:
I’ve been the only sober person at a party. It’s a lousy position to be in.
Click to expand...
I’ve been one of the only sober people at many parties and rock shows. Sometimes I don’t feel like drinking, sometimes I have to drive home. It’s not lousy at all, I didn’t go there to drink, I went to see a show and hang out with my friends.

I’ve been interacting with people who drink since I was young and have never felt a need to have a drink just because everybody else is. There are many practical and physical reasons why I might choose to just skip the alcohol and have a Coke instead. I also have friends who play in bands and love going to shows but cannot drink because they are alcoholic, or diabetic, or on medication that doesn’t go well with the alcohol, or they just don’t like the feeling of alcohol. It’s no big deal.
 
One way to completely avoid this. After a few occasions of teenage excess, I did not drink for 41 years. I lost grandfather, aunt, cousin and sole brother to alcoholism. When I finally did have a glass of wine after that, I nursed it - knowing of its power both to please and to condemn - and then did not drive. I normally have a glass of wine once or twice yearly, and that is to celebrate my anniversaries with my hematologist and then at Christmas.

Prudence walks hand-in-hand with temperance - two virtues that always yield great benefit.
 
I would suspect that whether or not one had to drive enters into this question. Which is not to say that getting totally hammered in the absence of driving is fine.
 
Freddy said:
I try to stick to two drinks per hour as well. At least for the first hour.
Click to expand...
Lol.
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s not lousy at all,
Click to expand...
This is certainly an opinion. And you are entitled to it.

I hate being around drunk people. I’m not talking about the have a few drinks and be a bit silly drunks but the ones that blather on and tell you about their feelings…blech! That to me is a lousy time whether I’ve been drinking or not.
 
Yeah, those type of people are a big bore. But unlikely to happen if, like me, you spend most of your time in venues with a band playing so loud nobody could hear a guy crying in his beer, and nobody would care anyway because they’re there to jump up and down to the band, not for a therapy session. Which reminds me, I saw this IPA at the beverage store last weekend and was all like “No. Just no.”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
kapp19 said:
Many people think abortion is not wrong, for example - do they get a moral pass? Many people also think drinking to the point of oblivion is fine. But it does not necessarily make them free of grave guilt.
Click to expand...
God would never hold guilty a person who has not knowledge of the law.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Three phrases: Serious matter, knowledge it is sinful, intending it in spite of the sin.

Simple actually.
Click to expand...
And I’d add to that, I see the sin is purposely setting out to get drunk.

That is, it’s something like, “It’s a three day weekend. So I’m going to go out tonight and get drunk.” Or “. . . I don’t care if I get drunk or not.”
 
Problem with people who have an alcohol problem is they do not believe they have a problem.
 
JacktheCatholic said:
With States in the USA having different B.A.C. (blood alcohol content) levels for what is considered drunk,
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect premise.

Those BAC levels are about operation of motor vehicles, not “drunk.”

Motor control and reaction time deteriorate before anything we would recognizes as drunkenness.

Those same BAC levels are not usable for showing dimishied reason.

When you notice an impaired driver, he is not even close to the legal BAC, but rather at a multiple. That is, someone who can’t stay in a lane is generally .20or higher, not down near the statutory BAC.

I’ve read plenty of DUI police reports in my practice. I can probably count the number that didn’t include alcohol on breath, slurred speech, and fumbling in the glove box on the fingers of one hand . . .,

Most DUI arrests do not start as a DUI stop, but rather as traffic stops. Things change when the window goes down and the cop gasps on the breath . . .
Welshrabbit said:
I’ve been the only sober person at a party. It’s a lousy position to be in.
Click to expand...
However, it beats being the only one who isn’t stoned . . . having seen people in that state left me horrified at the thought of having it happen to my own mind. It’s like lopping 20 or 30 points off the top of someone’s IQ . . .
Tis_Bearself said:
after everybody had been drinking at the wedding party for a while already.
Click to expand...
with “a while” likely being measured in days, not hours . . .
Pitcairn17 said:
I would suspect that whether or not one had to drive enters into this question. Which is not to say that getting totally hammered in the absence of driving is fine.
Click to expand...
Again, the level at which one should not be driving is well short of “drunk”, and even farther from “hammered.”
 
dochawk said:
Again, the level at which one should not be driving is well short of “drunk”, and even farther from “hammered.”
Click to expand...
Very true. I can hold my booze pretty well and I know what it takes to get me to the legal limit. But I found that 2 or 3 beers was a bad idea when I was driving my bike. I’d definitely be under the limit but that right wrist seemed to want to throttle up more often than not.
 
balancing on two wheels would definitely make one more aware of impairment than power steering, a soft transmission, and a slushy ride . . .

to be clear, I’m not saying it’s safer to drive impaired in a land yacht; just that the driver is more likely to become aware of the impairment with that sudden feedback on two wheels . .

hawk, who coincidently has an obsession with old Cadillacs . . .
 
dochawk said:
balancing on two wheels would definitely make one more aware of impairment than power steering, a soft transmission, and a slushy ride . . .

to be clear, I’m not saying it’s safer to drive impaired in a land yacht; just that the driver is more likely to become aware of the impairment with that sudden feedback on two wheels . .

hawk, who coincidently has an obsession with old Cadillacs . . .
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Funnily enough I used to drive a little faster and lean that thing over a little more if I was wearing leathers.

I remember someone writing a few years ago about how all the safety features in modern cars were isolating us from the dangers. Most people, if they’ve never had a prang, have no idea of the forces involved. In the article be asked if someone would be less likely to have an accident if they had umpteen air bags, crumple zones, anti lock breaks etc or if they drove with a spike sticking out of the steering wheel an inch from their chest.
 
Yes, you’re correct one needs to know the law - but there are laws that are “written on the heart” and thus are known even if not known explicitly in one’s psychology… We are obliged to know “efficaciously” the basic truths of the natural law, and when there is real complexity we can have the discussion about blameless ignorance. Again, Romans 1 is helpful.

Cheers…
 
Last edited:
Catechism speaks of differing levels of ignorance, summing it up with:

CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
 
Right. Invincible ignorance will excuse any sin. But simply not knowing the moral law does not equate with invincible ignorance of the law. Hardness of heart blinds the intellect to the truth which is within reach - it holds for natural moral truth, and also for the virtue of faith.
 
According to AMA (I think).

Moderate drinking is up to 4 drinks for a man spread out with one drink and hour and 3 drinks for a woman.

Above that is binging. Maybe this is a good reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top