The Police Contact: Silence Is Golden
- Thread starter AK103K
- Start date
- Status
Sir Galahad
member
Drunk drivers deserve to lose their driving priveleges. Forever. Period. Drunk drivers who kill other people should be executed. If you can't discipline yourself enough to be a responible driver, then you don't deserve to drive. Period. End of story.
In this sate, you can refuse to take a field sobriety test. Then you get to go to a holding cell while they get a search warrant for a blood sample. If that's how you want to spend your day, good for you.
Many employers, by the way, with employees who refuse to take a field sobriety test (not to mention a private lab test) after an accident (or traffic stop) in a company vehicle will fire that employee. Now try and find another job with that on your record.
You know, just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. If you are drunk and behind the wheel of a WEAPON (yes, at this point, it's a weapon), then be an ADULT and face up to the responsibility and take the pnishment of your stupid action. Don't try to hide behind the law like some wimpy nickle-and-dime thief. Drunk drivers get no sympathy from me. I hope they all try playing this legal musical chairs and wind up in even more trouble than they would have had if they had cooperated.
In this sate, you can refuse to take a field sobriety test. Then you get to go to a holding cell while they get a search warrant for a blood sample. If that's how you want to spend your day, good for you.
Many employers, by the way, with employees who refuse to take a field sobriety test (not to mention a private lab test) after an accident (or traffic stop) in a company vehicle will fire that employee. Now try and find another job with that on your record. You know, just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. If you are drunk and behind the wheel of a WEAPON (yes, at this point, it's a weapon), then be an ADULT and face up to the responsibility and take the pnishment of your stupid action. Don't try to hide behind the law like some wimpy nickle-and-dime thief. Drunk drivers get no sympathy from me. I hope they all try playing this legal musical chairs and wind up in even more trouble than they would have had if they had cooperated.
[blockquote]Drunk drivers deserve to lose their driving priveleges. Forever. Period. Drunk drivers who kill other people should be executed.[/blockquote]
I'm not totally disagreeing, but how do you measure drunkenness? .08 for a light 21-year-old vs .08 for someone older who's 200 and drinks every other night. Totally different. Not that .08 + driving is necessarily okay in either case, but certainly you can't claim that the limits for both people should be the same.
In short, I'd love to see stricter punishments, but not if they're unfairly applied.
I'm not totally disagreeing, but how do you measure drunkenness? .08 for a light 21-year-old vs .08 for someone older who's 200 and drinks every other night. Totally different. Not that .08 + driving is necessarily okay in either case, but certainly you can't claim that the limits for both people should be the same.
In short, I'd love to see stricter punishments, but not if they're unfairly applied.
Sir Galahad
member
I would say that there should be a scientific study of the average level of blood alcohol that causes driving impairment. From there, that would be the federal legal limit. That would be the threshold between legal and illegal. States could give greater penalties for higher levels, but the federal would be the point where illegal impairment starts. This would eliminate confusion with people who move to other states and what was legal in their former state is no illegal. And it would eliminate jurisdictional problems of interstate travel of drivers under the influence (or not.) There are some things that belong at a federal level. This is one. The interstates upon which many drunk drivers travel are federally administered. So are many highways. Alcohol itself is federally regulated. So the precedent is there for a federal guideline on what constitutes drunk driving to eliminate problems from state to state.
rebbryan
Member
if an officer pulls over someone for possible DUI, then they already have a suspicion and they're probably gonna smell your breath and that's reasonable doubt, and then your car gets searched. plus they can look in your car all they want with a flashlight from the outside, i doubt a drunk person's gonna hide their containers.
Joe Gunns
Member
.08 is .08.
tyme-
.08 BAC is .08 regardless of body weight. It refers to the percentage of blood volume that is pure alcohol. It takes the heavier person more drinks (if all other factors -amount and type of food in stomach, level of dehydration, type of drink being consumed, rate of consumption for example- are equal) to reach .08% BAC than the lighter person since they have more blood to dilute, but once at a given BAC the level of imparement is consistent. The experienced drinker has learned to compensate for their usual level of intoxication so as not to appear drunk, but their reaction times are impared to the same average degree. VERY experienced drinkers develop a tolerance that enables them to appear less intoxicated than they in are, however, their reaction times are still impared.
There is some variability in how individuals and racial groups process alcohol. There are individuals whose livers break down alcohol more efficiently than others. (I think the rate is around 1 oz an hour.) It would take such an individual more drinks to reach a given BAC. At the other extreme, I read about a case in Japan, I think it was, back in the early '70's when some poor schmuck was pulled over with a .2something. He swore he had not been drinking. After being in jail for 24 hours, his BAC was still the .2something. Turned out that his liver was MAKING alcohol, so that was the normal condition for him. Sounds like an urban legend doesn't it? I was taking a graduate class in alcohol problems when I found this article in a journal the name of which I have long since forgoetten, so I can't verify its veracity.
Pax Americana,
Joe
tyme-
.08 BAC is .08 regardless of body weight. It refers to the percentage of blood volume that is pure alcohol. It takes the heavier person more drinks (if all other factors -amount and type of food in stomach, level of dehydration, type of drink being consumed, rate of consumption for example- are equal) to reach .08% BAC than the lighter person since they have more blood to dilute, but once at a given BAC the level of imparement is consistent. The experienced drinker has learned to compensate for their usual level of intoxication so as not to appear drunk, but their reaction times are impared to the same average degree. VERY experienced drinkers develop a tolerance that enables them to appear less intoxicated than they in are, however, their reaction times are still impared.
There is some variability in how individuals and racial groups process alcohol. There are individuals whose livers break down alcohol more efficiently than others. (I think the rate is around 1 oz an hour.) It would take such an individual more drinks to reach a given BAC. At the other extreme, I read about a case in Japan, I think it was, back in the early '70's when some poor schmuck was pulled over with a .2something. He swore he had not been drinking. After being in jail for 24 hours, his BAC was still the .2something. Turned out that his liver was MAKING alcohol, so that was the normal condition for him. Sounds like an urban legend doesn't it? I was taking a graduate class in alcohol problems when I found this article in a journal the name of which I have long since forgoetten, so I can't verify its veracity.
Pax Americana,
Joe
TheeBadOne
Member
Very well said, and very accurate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
