# Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving?



## Margie

I was at a barbecue over the weekend and overheard a bit of a disagreement going on.  Maybe someone can shed some light on the correct answer.

With the new zero tolerance laws with regard to drinking and driving, are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving?  Keeping in mind that they do contain a very small amount of alcohol.  

A person that was at the barbecue was driving but drinking a few bottles of becks.  If he was stopped and breathalised would there have been a possibility that he could have tested positive for alcohol consumption?


----------



## HighFlier

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

You would have to drink 40 to 50 bottles of "Non Alcoholic" becks within a short time frame to be over the limit. "Zero tolerence" refers to enforcement of the law not a lowering of the limit which is still .08 but may come down to .05. Even then there would be no problem.


----------



## Caveat

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

If you are really worried, and maybe just as a matter of interest, non-alcoholic _Cobra_ beer I think claims 0%.

However _Becks NA_ is tolerable  - _Cobra_ is repulsive IMO.


----------



## HighFlier

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

NA Becks contains .05% alcohol. Alcoholic Becks contains 5%. So say the safe limit on alcoholic becks maybe two small bottles. then actually this is the equivalent of 200 bottles of non alcoholic becks. Even playing safe with one bottle would allow you to have a hundred bottles of NA and by time you drank the 100th. one (assuming you werent dead from waterlogging) the effects of the first few would be gone. So impossible to be over the limit.


----------



## thundercat

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

Can't understand people drinking the stuff in the first place but wouldn't it be similar to eating baileys cheescake or other alcoholic desserts...maybe they are worse actually!


----------



## HighFlier

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

Fresh fruit juice after one day will contain more alcohol than NA becks as a slight fermentation takes place. loads of other things . some desserts (as another poster mentioned), medicines, mouthwash etc contain significantly more alcohol than NA beer but unless you consume prodigious amounts of it you will never get a breathalyser reading above zero.


----------



## mathepac

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*



Margie said:


> ... With the new zero tolerance laws with regard to drinking and driving, are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving?  Keeping in mind that they do contain a very small amount of alcohol.  ...


By definition and law, there is no such thing as a "non-alcoholic" beer, wine, etc. So for drinkers, they would be better off using the correct terminology which is "low-acohol" beer, wine, etc.

Whether consuming low-alcohol drinks can produce a postive indication or "fail" on a breath-test machine or blood-test is very much an individual thing.

Each of us metabolizes or breaks down whatever we consume at different rates, and for any individual there's a multiplicity of factors to be taken into account - the elapsed time since the last drink, smoker / non-smoker, other substances consumed, how well the digestive system works on the day, whether we have eaten, what we have eaten, how healthy our liver / kidneys are, and so on. So whats "safe" for me today may be unsafe for me tomorrow.

If you want to be safe then as the thread title suggest - "Zero Tolerence" means zero alcohol.

BTW - I look forward to the Government inroducing zero tolerence for blood-breath alcohol tests for drivers and for supervisors of learner-permit holders. We still have one of the highest "acceptable levels" in Europe and are amonst the highest in the world.

I wonder how many U-turns the lobby-groups will manage to induce the then Minister to make when this is proposed.

My emphasis above is on "safety" rather than just the "detectable level", as I see them as being totally different things.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*



mathepac said:


> If you want to be safe then as the thread title suggest - "Zero Tolerence" means zero alcohol.



This is alarmist nonsense.

As a Priest from the Pioneers once told us at school, "you will get sick from drinking non-alcoholic beer before you get drunk on it". His next advice: "use your common sense"


mathepac said:


> BTW - I look forward to the Government inroducing zero tolerence for blood-breath alcohol tests for drivers and for supervisors of learner-permit holders. We still have one of the highest "acceptable levels" in Europe and are amonst the highest in the world.



This argument misses the point in 2 respects.

- Criminalising sober drivers is a funny way to go about detecting the hardcore drunk driving that goes on regardless of what limit is set.

- In many countries where a lower level applies compared to here, a driver does not lose their licence for exceeding the limit.


----------



## highly

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

I would regularly have NA beer when out at such social events...I think it's more social to be having a NA beer than a diet 7up - plus, you don't get pestered half as much in our alcohol fuelled society as to why you're not drinking. 

Then, on the other hand...i just really like the taste of beer and find them refreshing! 

But I'd have 6 or 7 and then drive home.


----------



## ncs

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*

LA Erdinger is one of the best if you can find it whilst out. It actually tastes more refreshing than the real thing to me at least. On prior experience though (memorable occasion where me and a pal hadn't twigged our rounds had been LA and not the Oktoberfest Special blue label), you can get pretty high drinking this stuff. Whether it's the placebo effect or something else in the brew besides alcohol, I wouldn't say I'd be 100% about my reaction times after a night out drinking it. Clear head in the morning though !!


----------



## shesells

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*



HighFlier said:


> NA Becks contains .05% alcohol. Alcoholic Becks contains 5%.


 
"non alcoholic" Becks contains 0.3% alcohol, 6 times more than your post HF. Porterhouse stocks a non alcoholic beer if I remember properly, that has even less alcohol and tastes better.


----------



## mathepac

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*



ubiquitous said:


> This is alarmist nonsense. ...


Actually it is neither. The only alternative to zero alcohol levels for drivers is an acceptable level of alcohol intoxication.  I would be interested in hearing any views on what this level is.


ubiquitous said:


> ...As a Priest from the Pioneers once told us at school, "you will get sick from drinking non-alcoholic beer before you get drunk on it".  ...


 And no doubt he had access to extensive research and vast scientific and medical training and knowledge to support his views.


ubiquitous said:


> ...
> This argument misses the point in 2 respects.
> 
> - Criminalising sober drivers is a funny way to go about detecting the hardcore drunk driving that goes on regardless of what limit is set.
> 
> - In many countries where a lower level applies compared to here, a driver does not lose their licence for exceeding the limit.


1 ) Its not an argument, as my post said its something "I look forward to", in other words a hope or aspiration
2) I made no mention of legal penalties in this country or anywhere else, nor did I mention "criminalising" anyone, the emphasis of my post was safety
3) Your post seems to confuse being legally "sober" with being safe to drive - they are not the same thing
4) Your post mentions "exceeding the limit" and again seems to confuse being below this arbitrary  "limit" with being safe to drive - again, they are not the same thing
  5) A zero tolerence to blood or breath alcohol levels might initially mean an increase in the detection of what your post classifies as "hardcore drunk driving", I don't see that as a bad thing if ultimately it makes the roads safer.

I hope the clarifications and explanations  help.


----------



## DeclanP

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*

Maybe this argument should be taken to forum level as it has strayed considerably away from the original query. Highflyer answered the question regarding the low alcoholic beers. With regard to zero tolerance, it is fine as long as the Government puts in place an alternative means of transport particularly in rural areas where the clampdown has virtually destroyed the social aspect of life


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*



DeclanP said:


> With regard to zero tolerance, it is fine as long as the Government puts in place an alternative means of transport particularly in rural areas where the clampdown has virtually destroyed the social aspect of life



Agreed.



mathepac said:


> 5) A zero tolerence to blood or breath alcohol levels might initially mean an increase in the detection of what your post classifies as "hardcore drunk driving", I don't see that as a bad thing if ultimately it makes the roads safer.


Enforcement of the existing laws would also make the roads safer. This is not happening. Why would the addition of a new law change this?



mathepac said:


> Actually it is neither. The only alternative to zero alcohol levels for drivers is an acceptable level of alcohol intoxication.


Are you aware that alcohol occurs naturally within the human body to the extent that it can show up on blood-alcohol and urine-alcohol readings, even for teetotallers?



mathepac said:


> And no doubt he had access to extensive research and vast scientific and medical training and knowledge to support his views.



Why on earth would you need "extensive research and vast scientific and medical training" to tell you that "you will get sick from drinking non-alcoholic beer before you get drunk on it"?


----------



## werner

*Re: Zero Tolerance - What about 'nonalcoholic' beer?*



mathepac said:


> By definition and law, there is no such thing as a "non-alcoholic" beer, wine, etc. So for drinkers, they would be better off using the correct terminology which is "low-acohol" beer, wine, etc.
> 
> Whether consuming low-alcohol drinks can produce a postive indication or "fail" on a breath-test machine or blood-test is very much an individual thing.
> 
> Each of us metabolizes or breaks down whatever we consume at different rates, and for any individual there's a multiplicity of factors to be taken into account - the elapsed time since the last drink, smoker / non-smoker, other substances consumed, how well the digestive system works on the day, whether we have eaten, what we have eaten, how healthy our liver / kidneys are, and so on. So whats "safe" for me today may be unsafe for me tomorrow.
> 
> If you want to be safe then as the thread title suggest - "Zero Tolerence" means zero alcohol.
> 
> BTW - I look forward to the Government inroducing zero tolerence for blood-breath alcohol tests for drivers and for supervisors of learner-permit holders. We still have one of the highest "acceptable levels" in Europe and are amonst the highest in the world.
> 
> I wonder how many U-turns the lobby-groups will manage to induce the then Minister to make when this is proposed.
> 
> My emphasis above is on "safety" rather than just the "detectable level", as I see them as being totally different things.


 
Fow what the comment is worth...

I was using a throat spray to fight an infection and I tried a friends Alcolyser...it blew it off the scale!

Perhaps if it had of being a real world situation and it was the Gardai testing I would have had a follow up blood test to reveal zero alcohol

Stiil it is something to be aware of, especially after reading some court cases when you hear of the delays in getting a doctor to take a blood sample


----------



## Pique318

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*

I was breathalysed on a Saturday evening after having had 4 units of alcohol on the Thursday night (from 8pm to about midnight) and it showed up as 0.1. I was doing manual labour in the interim and nothing resembling alcohol passed my lips (no sherry trifle, baileys cheesecake, cough medicine etc.). I also have quite a fast metabolism so I was quite surprised overall. That was my first ever breath test incidentally, and I've been driving for 14-odd years.


----------



## ClubMan

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*

How exactly did you measure these "units"? If it was by the usually rule of thumb of "glasses of beer/wine" then this is very imprecise especially since the _ABV _for different drinks varies so much.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*



Pique318 said:


> I was breathalysed on a Saturday evening after having had 4 units of alcohol on the Thursday night (from 8pm to about midnight) and it showed up as 0.1. I was doing manual labour in the interim and nothing resembling alcohol passed my lips (no sherry trifle, baileys cheesecake, cough medicine etc.). I also have quite a fast metabolism so I was quite surprised overall. That was my first ever breath test incidentally, and I've been driving for 14-odd years.



Its quite possible that your alcohol reading had nothing to do with your drinking 45-48 hours previously but was caused instead by naturally occurring alcohol within your body.


----------



## Pique318

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*



ClubMan said:


> How exactly did you measure these "units"? If it was by the usually rule of thumb of "glasses of beer/wine" then this is very imprecise especially since the _ABV _for different drinks varies so much.



Oh wow, I just checked it on Wiki and it was more like 9 units I had. Still thought that your body metabolises 1 unit in 2 hours ? So I've 30 or so hours where that drinking has no bearing. 

Also, you'd think that the calibration of the breathalysers (or intoxilyser, such a stupid name) should take account of these naturally occuring alcohols in your body and rate them as the zero point.


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*



Pique318 said:


> Also, you'd think that the calibration of the breathalysers (or intoxilyser, such a stupid name) should take account of these naturally occuring alcohols in your body and rate them as the zero point.



But how can they do this when the rates of naturally occurring alcohols vary significantly from person to person?


----------



## Margie

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*

Wow - I did not expect to get so much reponse!  I also notice this has been moved to letting off steam which i think is very funny.

Any way so what's the answer?  Can you drink non-alcoholic beer and drive, yes or no?


----------



## ubiquitous

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*



Margie said:


> Any way so what's the answer?  Can you drink non-alcoholic beer and drive, yes or no?



Can you not work that out for yourself from the replies that have been posted?


----------



## Margie

*Re: Zero Tolerance - are so called non-alcoholic beers ok to drink if you are driving*

Oh i'm sorry let me just read them all again.........

hmmm


----------

