Jump to content


Photo

It should be legal to drive with any BAC.

water yeast malt hops drinking

  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#41 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:57 AM

No. It would be ok to charge them with reckless driving if they were driving recklessly.If a guy gets pulled over, and fails a field sobriety test, it should not matter what his BAC is, because he is driving recklessly. BAC was a way to define drunk in the beginning. But like most bad legislation, it was bastardized by special interest groups, and lowered to a point where it is not about stopping drunk drivers anymore. Now most people who get DUI are not even drunk. I say take the arbitrary number out of the equation, and go on field sobriety, which is a better indication of impairment. If you are impaired, you are driving recklessly. Having a .08 BAC does not mean you are a reckless driver.

in a way, i agree with you here. but, the thing is, if you can pass the field sobriety test, the cop is most likely going to send you on your way. generally speaking, it's only after failing a field sobriety test (or somebody flat out refuses one) that bac even becomes an issue anyway.
  • 0

#42 MakeMeHoppy

MakeMeHoppy

    Redundancy Comptroller of Redundancy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8621 posts
  • LocationSlower Lower Delaware

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:58 AM

One of the reasons for things like this is with a high BAC level you 'in theory' cannot always make good decisions. I think that is why the laws go back to fining the bartender that served the already drunk person because the drunk could not make the correct decision to stop drinking.
  • 0

#43 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:01 AM

Yes.ETA: And honestly I'm surprised that you are defending a law that allows the cops to arrest someone because of the way they smell.

lol. yeah, that's what it's all about...the way you smell.
  • 0

#44 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89147 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:02 AM

Yes.ETA: And honestly I'm surprised that you are defending a law that allows the cops to arrest someone because of the way they smell.

shrug. The smell alone shouldn't be enough to arrest someone obviously but it's enough to warrant further investigation. If we let the drunk guy off with a warning because 'he only had a taillight out' and then 500 yards down the road he plows into a tree, or a family, what then? Part of what is necessary when driving is the ability to react quickly and make life-or-death decisions. Intoxicated people aren't as good at doing that and shouldn't be trusted to "decide for themselves" if they can drive or not.
  • 0

#45 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:03 AM

lol. yeah, that's what it's all about...the way you smell.

In stains example it was. Seems like a ridiculous reason to take away someone's license, cost them thousands of dollars, take away their property (impound the car), and in many cases get them fired.
  • 0

#46 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:07 AM

In stains example it was. Seems like a ridiculous reason to take away someone's license, cost them thousands of dollars, take away their property (impound the car), and in many cases get them fired.

hmm. i've never heard of somebody being convicted of dwi based solely on smell. i've always heard of people failing field sobriety tests and then taking and failing a breathalyzer test.
  • 0

#47 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:07 AM

shrug. The smell alone shouldn't be enough to arrest someone obviously but it's enough to warrant further investigation. If we let the drunk guy off with a warning because 'he only had a taillight out' and then 500 yards down the road he plows into a tree, or a family, what then?

I doubt that would happen any significant amount of times. If they guy is so impaired that he's going to run over a family, it would have been obvious by his driving. Nothing would have switched on or off in those 500 yards. Further, if he passed a field sobriety test then he's not impaired enough to cause damage 500 yards down the road.

Part of what is necessary when driving is the ability to react quickly and make life-or-death decisions. Intoxicated people aren't as good at doing that and shouldn't be trusted to "decide for themselves" if they can drive or not.

I don't like the idea of the government picking a number and deciding that I'm impaired at that number. It's a bad indicator of impairment. It's also a lagging indicator. 0.08 feels much drunker on the way up than on the way down.
  • 0

#48 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89147 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:07 AM

In stains example it was. Seems like a ridiculous reason to take away someone's license, cost them thousands of dollars, take away their property (impound the car), and in many cases get them fired.

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse but just in case you really don't get it, obviously I meant the smell of alcohol would cause the officer to ask you to perform a field sobriety test and if you failed that, a breathalyzer.
  • 0

#49 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:08 AM

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse but just in case you really don't get it, obviously I meant the smell of alcohol would cause the officer to ask you to perform a field sobriety test and if you failed that, a breathalyzer.

ding ding ding. i think we have a winna.
  • 0

#50 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:09 AM

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse but just in case you really don't get it, obviously I meant the smell of alcohol would cause the officer to ask you to perform a field sobriety test and if you failed that, a breathalyzer.

So if the driver passed the field sobriety test and had a BAC of 0.16, you'd be fine with the cop letting him go?
  • 0

#51 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89147 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

I doubt that would happen any significant amount of times. If they guy is so impaired that he's going to run over a family, it would have been obvious by his driving. Nothing would have switched on or off in those 500 yards.

Disagree on the first point, and you're ignoring the fact that as you yourself say, it's a lagging indicator. .08 now could be .12 in 500 yards if the guy just took a shot 5 minutes ago.

Further, if he passed a field sobriety test then he's not impaired enough to cause damage 500 yards down the road.

If he passed, then he probably wouldn't have been asked to take a breathalyzer and it wouldn't matter anyway.
  • 0

#52 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89147 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

So if the driver passed the field sobriety test and had a BAC of 0.16, you'd be fine with the cop letting him go?

I've never heard of a situation where someone passed the sobriety test and still had to blow.
  • 0

#53 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24763 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

If he passed, then he probably wouldn't have been asked to take a breathalyzer and it wouldn't matter anyway.

I've never heard of a situation where someone passed the sobriety test and still had to blow.

exactly.

Edited by ErnestFrye, 09 January 2012 - 09:11 AM.

  • 0

#54 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22132 posts
  • LocationBoulder, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:11 AM

Having this "standard", while it is an annoyance to you, takes the subjectivity out of the equation. If you blow a .040, then you cannot be charged with the Prohibited Alcohol Concentration charge.

My problem is that certain areas will still charge you under 0.080 with an OWI. Which is BS. Where you driving recklessly? If so that is the charge.
  • 1

#55 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89147 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:12 AM

My problem is that certain areas will still charge you under 0.080 with an OWI. Which is BS. Where you driving recklessly? If so that is the charge.

Now THIS pisses me off. I'm fine with setting a legal standard because as Deerslyr says it removes the subjectivity. Allowing an officer to use 'discretion' to charge you with OWI even if you're below .08 puts the subjectivity back in and I'm not OK with that.
  • 0

#56 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22132 posts
  • LocationBoulder, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:15 AM

I've never heard of a situation where someone passed the sobriety test and still had to blow.

I have. However it was when dealing with minors (in college) who can be charge with a DUI if they blow any BAC. Which is also BS to me, go ahead and give them an MIP but if the DUI law for society is 0.08 then we don't need to go ruining some 20year olds life if they blow a 0.02. A DUI is quite devastating and carries far into life verse the correct charge of MIP.(That said I've also witnessed lenient cops not always enforce that DUI part on a minor which was great to see they had some sense to them.)
  • 0

#57 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:16 AM

I've never heard of a situation where someone passed the sobriety test and still had to blow.

Ok. Assume he wasn't asked to blow. BAC was never tested, but if it was, he'd fail. Should he be allowed to drive off after passing a field sobriety test? If so, why?
  • 0

#58 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23796 posts
  • LocationGod's Country!

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:17 AM

My problem is that certain areas will still charge you under 0.080 with an OWI. Which is BS. Where you driving recklessly? If so that is the charge.

They bring two charges... one is a PAC (Prohibited Alcohol Concentration) and the other is Impaired Driving. You aren't exposed to additional penalties, but rather the State can obtain a conviction on one, or both charges. You can be below the PAC and still have impaired driving... but that goes back to the subjective standard I was talking about earlier. Swerving and other erratic behavior are still the likely indicators of the Impaired Driving, however with the lower standard of .080 for the PAC, it gets closer to the actual point at which Impaired Driving manifests itself.

A driver is "under the influence" when his or her ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired. A person's ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired if he or she is less able to safely control the vehicle because of the consumption of alcohol or controlled substances.


  • 0

#59 CarlosM

CarlosM

    SeƱor Joykill

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12344 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:18 AM

I'll just wait for you guys to have a friend or family member almost die from a car accident from a drunk driver.
  • 0

#60 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:19 AM

I'll just wait for you guys to have a friend or family member almost die from a car accident from a drunk driver.

You can keep your sensationalist BS in a different thread. Thanks.
  • 2



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: water, yeast, malt, hops, drinking

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users