What the top dawg po po don't tell their officers...

[Wicky]

This is scary shit imo...it's all about the money!!:beer


The Future of DUI
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on February 23rd, 2005
I gave a lecture to a national organization of attorneys last week in which I was asked, among other things, to anticipate the future course of DUI laws in the United States. Bearing in mind the words of Adlai Stevenson (“We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present”), I predicted the following…..

DUI Laws The Past: The original laws simply outlawed driving while impaired. With the arrival of primitive breathalyzers, and the counsel of the American Medical Association, impairment was presumed with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15%. Over the years this was dropped to .10%, then .08%, and finally the laws were added making the BAC — not impairment — the offense. There are now bills before state legislatures to drop it to .05%. So-called “zero tolerance” made it a crime for drivers under 21 to have even .01% BAC.

The Trend: From focusing on actual impairment, to facilitating arrests and convictions by focusing on artifical BAC levels — and, finally, to the mere presence of alcohol. The emphasis has shifted from addressing the danger (impaired drivers) to facilitating arrests and convictions.

The Future: The “zero tolerance” laws will be applied to drivers of all ages. Criminal liability will be expanded to include attempted drunk driving (regardless of lack of specific intent), as well as vicarious liability: accomplices (“aiding and abetting”), conspiracy and so-called “Dram Shop Act” liability (providing a drink to someone who may drive).

Evidence The Past: Originally, the arresting officer gave his opinion of impairment based upon his observations of driving and symptoms, as well as field sobriety tests. The emphasis shifted to increasingly sophisticated breathalyzers and to blood tests administered by nurses or technicians. However, portable and handheld breath testing devices have more recently been used at the scene to determine probable cause to arrest; the later test on a more sophisticated breathalyzer at the station continues to be used as evidence in court. Some courts are beginning to accept the portable units into evidence.

The Trend: An increasing emphasis on money and expediency rather than accuracy and reliability.

The Future: Evidentiary breathalyzers will be replaced with simpler, cheaper (and less accurate) handheld units at the scene of arrest. Blood samples will be obtained by the officer with his syringe at the scene. Saliva tests may gain acceptance.

Constitutional Rights The Past: There has been a parade of adverse Supreme Court decisions and a steady erosion of constitutional rights in drunk driving cases — what I have called “The DUI Exception to the Constitution”. These have included approval of sobriety roadblocks (Sitz v. Michigan); double jeopardy (immediate license suspensions followed by criminal prosecutions); right to counsel; self-incrimination (Neville v. South Dakota); presumptions of innocence (if .08%, then presumed under the influence; if test taken within 3 hours of driving, BAC presumed to be same as when driving); confrontation; jury trial (Blanton v. North Las Vegas); etc.

The Trend: From the protection of the citizen from police violations, to the protection of the police from legal interference.

The Future: Increasing loss of constitutional protection — notably, the complete loss of the right to a jury trial. With the clear focus on cost and expediency, DUI cases will be handled in an administrative setting as license suspensions currently are: the two procedures will simply be consolidated, although criminal penalties will remain. There may be no judge, but only an administrative hearing officer.

Federal Presence The Past: DUI laws have always been a state-prescribed crime. With the prompting of special interest groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and the desire of politicians to curry favor with voters, this has gradually changed. Using a “carrot and stick” approach with highway funds, the federal government has forced states to change their laws and penalties in such ways as: “per se” laws; .08% BAC; “zero tolerance” for drivers under 21; automatic license suspensions; standardized field sobriety tests; federally approved lists of breath testing machines.

The Trend: The federalizing of a traditionally state offense.

The Future: With the use of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, DUI laws and penalties will become “federalized”. However, without the ability (or inclination) to arrest and prosecute these crimes in the federal courts, the states will be left to continue processing them in their own courts or administrative hearings.

The New Prohibition The Past: The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was primarily a woman’s movement that ended as a failed experiment. Since then….The BAC levels for DUI have steadily dropped from .15% to .08%, and there are efforts to reduce it further. Drivers under 21 already face .01% — alcohol prohibition as to driving.

 

[Wicky]

No argument here I guess.

 

[Kachina26]

Did you get pinched for a DUI recently? Over half the threads you've started are some sort of LE/DUI bashing thing. Just curious, don't take it the wrong way.

 

[BoatCop]

Regarding the "Zero Tolerance" for drivers under 21.

It is illegal for them to drink alcohol period. Why then, should it be legal for them to drive after drinking any alcohol?

 

[Wicky]

Yes but, money was cut from the states if they didn't concur with the feds regarding the 21 drinking age?
I believe 18 or 19 was the drinking age in the majority of states before 21 was implemented. Yet, the percentage of underage drinking is staggering.
I hate to use the cliche of fight for your country but, no drinky allowed.
Look around the world at other countries drinking ages.

I didn't post this for the zero tolerance for underage drinking anyway.
I posted because we are on the way to zero tolerance for legal age drinking and driving. If and when zero tolerance is implemented, three sips out of a beer will be considered legally drunk just as .08 is today. This is my gripe. A billion in revenue will quickly become a trillion in revenue.
Wicky

 

[Stalkaholic]

Regarding the "Zero Tolerance" for drivers under 21.

It is illegal for them to drink alcohol period. Why then, should it be legal for them to drive after drinking any alcohol?

This I do full heartedly agree with. However...

A certain story comes to mind that was told to me from an ex-CHP officer. An 18 year old kid was pulled over. Kid was breathalyzed and blew over the limit. The kid claimed he had just recently used mouthwash...nobody believed that mouthwash could register over the limit on a breathalyzer, but he stuck to his story.

So as a test, CHP officers one day decided to test the theory. They all rinsed their mouths out with Listerine, then waited 1/2 hour. Then they all blew into their breathalyzers...not one of them could blow under the legal limit.

Also...why is the law based solely on breath alcohol content rather than actual impairment? A person could blow a .08 and not actually be impaired. Alcohol affects everyone differently...a person could be at .12 and drive fine, while another person could be at .05 and feel impairment. And let's take it a step further...people who drive while tired...they may not have any alcohol in their system, but when you're driving while in a fatigued state I would think it would make your driving just as unsafe and dangerous to yourself and others as driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs. Having said that, why is it that nobody ever gets busted for driving while in a state of fatigue?

 

[Ratso]

Yes but, money was cut from the states if they didn't concur with the feds regarding the 21 drinking age?
I believe 18 or 19 was the drinking age in the majority of states before 21 was implemented. Yet, the percentage of underage drinking is staggering.
I hate to use the cliche of fight for your country but, no drinky allowed.
Look around the world at other countries drinking ages.

I didn't post this for the zero tolerance for underage drinking anyway.
I posted because we are on the way to zero tolerance for legal age drinking and driving. If and when zero tolerance is implemented, three sips out of a beer will be considered legally drunk just as .08 is today. This is my gripe. A billion in revenue will quickly become a trillion in revenue.
Wicky

Lower the BAC... raise the drinking age... It's all bullshit. Die for your country but you can't have a drink lmfao... Hell, if you're 18, drive a few hours from where I live and go into Acuna and get shit faced... legally... It's a frikkin' joke.

 

[Ratso]

This I do full heartedly agree with. However...

A certain story comes to mind that was told to me from an ex-CHP officer. An 18 year old kid was pulled over. Kid was breathalyzed and blew over the limit. The kid claimed he had just recently used mouthwash...nobody believed that mouthwash could register over the limit on a breathalyzer, but he stuck to his story.

So as a test, CHP officers one day decided to test the theory. They all rinsed their mouths out with Listerine, then waited 1/2 hour. Then they all blew into their breathalyzers...not one of them could blow under the legal limit.

Also...why is the law based solely on breath alcohol content rather than actual impairment? A person could blow a .08 and not actually be impaired. Alcohol affects everyone differently...a person could be at .12 and drive fine, while another person could be at .05 and feel impairment. And let's take it a step further...people who drive while tired...they may not have any alcohol in their system, but when you're driving while in a fatigued state I would think it would make your driving just as unsafe and dangerous to yourself and others as driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs. Having said that, why is it that nobody ever gets busted for driving while in a state of fatigue?[/QUOTE]

Give em time bud... give em time...

 

[snake321]

Bottom line - You canNOT read your weight and size on a bac chart that says that you can have 2 beers in a certain amount of time to remain legal to drive and trust the testing to back this up.
You could lose after 1 beer.

 

[kilrtoy]

I will put an end to your arguement once and for all...

DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT.


with that said, if they make it zero , then zero it shall be......

Get the fock over it already.....

 

[Harley5229]

Bottom line - You canNOT read your weight and size on a bac chart that says that you can have 2 beers in a certain amount of time to remain legal to drive and trust the testing to back this up.
You could lose after 1 beer.

The research shows the average 170lb male could consume about 4 standard drinks in an hour before reaching near the .08 (other factors also influence such as food, time period in which the alcohol was consumed, etc). Please also note what one standard drink is considered: 12oz 4-5% alc. beer, 4 oz wine, or 1.5oz liquor. I know many people who come to me daily and say "I only had 2 beers yesterday" and when I ask brand, size, etc. I get "2 - 24oz High Alcohol Content" - Those two beers went from 2 to almost 8 standard drinks. Yet in their mind they think it's two beers because that's how many cans they had.

My continuous message is just to be safe...

If someone get pulled over after only one beer and it trips them up for 30 minutes while the cop assess their level of intoxication and then sends them on your way. I'd much prefer that inconvenience then him not assessing them or pulling them over (and in a case when maybe they are intoxicated) and letting them drive on the roads where myself or my family may be - because the inconvienece is a lot less than what will happen if someone does crash.....

Now, also take into account that if you really did only have one beer and got pulled over and you turn into an ass with the cop, then most likely the scenario will change!!! :hotdevil

And Stalkaholic, not sure if you were reading the other thread but although mouthwash can give a BAC over the limit, 1) it can be rinsed out immediately so in the case where you are not on the side of the road, but rather been given a BAC for say employment or alcohol treatment, the change in the level is almost insant and it becomes clear it was mouthwash, 2) That is why cops have to observe the person for between 15 and 20 minutes and do at least two BAC readings. Mouth alcohol diminishes in that time or greatly reduces so it becomes clear the drop was due to mouth alcohol and not actual intoxication.

Can anyone here honestly tell me they personally have read all the peer-reviewed, scientific journals out there on the research between .08 and .10and can claim they know that there really is no difference in an average persons state of impairment? I highly doubt it.

 

[boatnam2]

does mouthwash small like beer now?I know dumb question:beer Everytime i have been pulled over and had a few i have never heard the cop say that he detects the smell of mouthwash can i exit the cars to walk the line.

 

[snake321]

Alcohol has no inherent smell, only the additives and flavorings do. The stink of beer on your breath cannot be observed as real beer or near beer.

 

[Wicky]

I will put an end to your arguement once and for all...

DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT.


with that said, if they make it zero , then zero it shall be......

Get the fock over it already.....

HOw did I know Kilr was gonna say that?? Because he loves stating only the obvious.oint

 

[Wicky]

The research shows the average 170lb male could consume about 4 standard drinks in an hour before reaching near the .08 (other factors also influence such as food, time period in which the alcohol was consumed, etc). Please also note what one standard drink is considered: 12oz 4-5% alc. beer, 4 oz wine, or 1.5oz liquor. I know many people who come to me daily and say "I only had 2 beers yesterday" and when I ask brand, size, etc. I get "2 - 24oz High Alcohol Content" - Those two beers went from 2 to almost 8 standard drinks. Yet in their mind they think it's two beers because that's how many cans they had.


That is booshit!!! One beer and I will blow "hot" guaranteed and very possibly written up for a DUI!!!



Can anyone here honestly tell me they personally have read all the peer-reviewed, scientific journals out there on the research between .08 and .10and can claim they know that there really is no difference in an average persons state of impairment? I highly doubt it.

Yes I can't!! But I know there is a vested interest by the scientists. They don't work for free. Job security anyone?

 

[Harley5229]

Wicky, I am not denying you might blow hot if you drink a beer and then walk out and take a BAC in the parking lot- I don't think that happens a lot? BUT that alone is not grounds for a DUI unless the person turns into an uncooperative ass for the cop. You did state "very possibly" written up for a DUI. Many factors go into a DUI.

My point is its about personal responsibility. My best friends dad was swerving and got pulled over. All he had consumed was cough medicine that day. He was given a BAC, He blew hot. Turns out, with his liver condition the cough syrup was more than his body can handle and he was under the influence. He didn't realize he was swerving, etc. He wasn't also aware that cough medicine could do that when combined with his liver condition. Although bummed about the charge, he was grateful in the long run because it taught him something and help protect innocent people. He took responsibility. Just stating we all need to think about our actions. Most people drink alcohol for the effects, meaning it alters our normal state of being. One beer or twenty. The degree may be different but we all need to be careful.

I do research for a living and the results of my research have no impact on my job security. If a study I am doing doesn't go the way we hypothesized, then we examine that. My job is to test things and to examine the outcomes, what ever way it goes. Sometimes the absence of something is just as important as the presence of another thing. There are many safegauards in place to protect research interms of conflict of interest, etc. There are oversight committees who have oversight committees who have oversight committees, just to make sure it's done correctly. Research has come a long way. Is there some bad research out there, of course. There's always a bad apple in every bunch. But please don't put a generic label on all research or statistics.

weew -

and as I stated on the other one - Happy birthday Wicky on Friday!! Friday's are good days for birthday's!!

 

[Riodog]

Wicky, It appears to me that what you are really squawking about is our loss of rights guaranteed under the constitution. I agree entirely. You're always going to have dissenters until it hit's home ->it effects those people personally.

Our elected whores are only concerned about being re-elected -> they don't give a f*ck about you or me, just our vote-> and to stay elected they come up with these idiotic laws just so they can say " look at me-I'm doing something about it". They are doing nothing more than looking out for #1.

To keep their job that any illiterate moron could do, spend other peoples money on BS that accomplishes nothing and not have to work for a living, is the primary goal of every one of them.

WE have lost or had impaired every freedom and right that the constitution was meant to protect and at the same time giving rights and protections to those (non-citizens) that do not deserve them.

Personally, I am an advocate of a civil revolution in this country and lets start over.

K-toy, while I'm usually on your side about most everything, when it comes to the vehicle code we'll probably come to blows. In this state, it's written on so much of a slant that the PO PO prevails even when they are blatantly wrong. It's not a cut and dried code and the greater majority is open the the interpretation of the fucktard in the dress.

There is so much disparity and discrimination in our laws that I'm almost convinced that the abolishment of all state gov't and have just the fed gov't as our governing body might just be better. I'd have to give it more thought. I just know that what we are living under at this moment is not what our founding fathers envisioned and if I remember my history correctly, they revolted didn't they?
Rio

 

[JetBoatCop]

I will put an end to your arguement once and for all...

DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT.


with that said, if they make it zero , then zero it shall be......

Get the fock over it already.....

Thank you! Most people don't know when they sign for their license, that they are saying they will consent to give their blood or breath for testing and follow the drinking rules.

Wicky, why is it that all you do is bash LEO's? Find something better to do.

 

[Topless]

Wicky, It appears to me that what you are really squawking about is our loss of rights guaranteed under the constitution. I agree entirely. You're always going to have dissenters until it hit's home ->it effects those people personally.

Our elected whores are only concerned about being re-elected -> they don't give a f*ck about you or me, just our vote-> and to stay elected they come up with these idiotic laws just so they can say " look at me-I'm doing something about it". They are doing nothing more than looking out for #1.

To keep their job that any illiterate moron could do, spend other peoples money on BS that accomplishes nothing and not have to work for a living, is the primary goal of every one of them.

WE have lost or had impaired every freedom and right that the constitution was meant to protect and at the same time giving rights and protections to those (non-citizens) that do not deserve them.

Personally, I am an advocate of a civil revolution in this country and lets start over.

K-toy, while I'm usually on your side about most everything, when it comes to the vehicle code we'll probably come to blows. In this state, it's written on so much of a slant that the PO PO prevails even when they are blatantly wrong. It's not a cut and dried code and the greater majority is open the the interpretation of the fucktard in the dress.

There is so much disparity and discrimination in our laws that I'm almost convinced that the abolishment of all state gov't and have just the fed gov't as our governing body might just be better. I'd have to give it more thought. I just know that what we are living under at this moment is not what our founding fathers envisioned and if I remember my history correctly, they revolted didn't they?
Rio

RIO FOR PRESIDENT

 

[Wicky]

RIO FOR PRESIDENT

I second the motion!!

 

[OverKill]

WICKY

Let me tell you first hand about drinking and driving. I was hit head on by one of these drunk driving idiots and I souldn't be here today. Alot of people here from the boards have helped me threw this terrible time. So I could give a damn why you or anyone else would be stripped of there rights for dinking and driving at any level. If you havent figured why the laws are becoming more harsh, let me enlighten you. As you have given your testimony from things of the past to the future. It only displays that people don't seem to give a S**T. You slap a guy on the rist once and five years later he has 10 DUI's on his record all from differnt States. WTF. OH and if you feel these laws are being enforced for more money in the judicial systems pocket, then F**K ya. I would like to send you some pictures of what it looks like when you let a guy drive drunk, hit a guy head on, all because the law wasn't harsh enough. Good day to you and God Bless.

OverKill

P.S Topless How ya been girl?? Long time no talk.

 

[Wicky]

WICKY

Let me tell you first hand about drinking and driving. I was hit head on by one of these drunk driving idiots and I souldn't be here today. Alot of people here from the boards have helped me threw this terrible time. So I could give a damn why you or anyone else would be stripped of there rights for dinking and driving at any level. If you havent figured why the laws are becoming more harsh, let me enlighten you. As you have given your testimony from things of the past to the future. It only displays that people don't seem to give a S**T. You slap a guy on the rist once and five years later he has 10 DUI's on his record all from differnt States. WTF. OH and if you feel these laws are being enforced for more money in the judicial systems pocket, then F**K ya. I would like to send you some pictures of what it looks like when you let a guy drive drunk, hit a guy head on, all because the law wasn't harsh enough. Good day to you and God Bless.

OverKill

P.S Topless How ya been girl?? Long time no talk.

Sorry man...how drunk was the person who hit you? My dad and brother rolled 6 times in a van off of a cliff after being hit by a drunk. I don't think it tickled them either. Plenty of blood was shed. The DRUNK driver was 4 times the legal limit. A friend that was in the van eventually did die from complications.

 

[JetBoatCop]

WICKY

Let me tell you first hand about drinking and driving. I was hit head on by one of these drunk driving idiots and I souldn't be here today. Alot of people here from the boards have helped me threw this terrible time. So I could give a damn why you or anyone else would be stripped of there rights for dinking and driving at any level. If you havent figured why the laws are becoming more harsh, let me enlighten you. As you have given your testimony from things of the past to the future. It only displays that people don't seem to give a S**T. You slap a guy on the rist once and five years later he has 10 DUI's on his record all from differnt States. WTF. OH and if you feel these laws are being enforced for more money in the judicial systems pocket, then F**K ya. I would like to send you some pictures of what it looks like when you let a guy drive drunk, hit a guy head on, all because the law wasn't harsh enough. Good day to you and God Bless.

OverKill

P.S Topless How ya been girl?? Long time no talk.

Well put. 0 tolerance would be a very good thing. I've seen the aftermath of a fatal DWI crash. It's not pretty. No one has a right to drive. If DWI laws were harsher instead of a Class B misdomeaner it might wake some people up before they kill someone.

 

[snake321]

Blood testing should be mandatory

 

[Topless]

WICKY

Let me tell you first hand about drinking and driving. I was hit head on by one of these drunk driving idiots and I souldn't be here today. Alot of people here from the boards have helped me threw this terrible time. So I could give a damn why you or anyone else would be stripped of there rights for dinking and driving at any level. If you havent figured why the laws are becoming more harsh, let me enlighten you. As you have given your testimony from things of the past to the future. It only displays that people don't seem to give a S**T. You slap a guy on the rist once and five years later he has 10 DUI's on his record all from differnt States. WTF. OH and if you feel these laws are being enforced for more money in the judicial systems pocket, then F**K ya. I would like to send you some pictures of what it looks like when you let a guy drive drunk, hit a guy head on, all because the law wasn't harsh enough. Good day to you and God Bless.

OverKill

P.S Topless How ya been girl?? Long time no talk.

Hey hun, I've been good. Do you still have my number? My daughter had my phone for a couple weeks and I don't know what she did to my contacts but half of them are gone. PM me with yours.

 

[68Schiada]

This is scary shit imo...it's all about the money!!:beer

The Trend: The federalizing of a traditionally state offense.

The Future: With the use of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, DUI laws and penalties will become “federalized”. However, without the ability (or inclination) to arrest and prosecute these crimes in the federal courts, the states will be left to continue processing them in their own courts or administrative hearings.QUOTE]




Hhhhmmmm............State police officers doing federalized arrests.......our politicians wont allow the police to arest illegal aliens.....which they say is a federal matter.:fsakes.........takes too much valuable time, and costs too much blah blah blah...........wonder if they will say the same thing regarding federalized DUI arests.........revolution is a solution......

 

[Wicky]

This is scary shit imo...it's all about the money!!:beer

The Trend: The federalizing of a traditionally state offense.

The Future: With the use of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, DUI laws and penalties will become “federalized”. However, without the ability (or inclination) to arrest and prosecute these crimes in the federal courts, the states will be left to continue processing them in their own courts or administrative hearings.QUOTE]




Hhhhmmmm............State police officers doing federalized arrests.......our politicians wont allow the police to arest illegal aliens.....which they say is a federal matter.:fsakes.........takes too much valuable time, and costs too much blah blah blah...........wonder if they will say the same thing regarding federalized DUI arests.........revolution is a solution......

All great democracys in the history of the world have eventually failed and crumbled. Some faster than others. This country and the laws that are put upon its citizens is not headed in the right direction. Sure, right now it is the best place in the world to live. But, our taxes are nearing socialism status. We are becoming a police nation more and more every day. I don't think revolution is too far off. Maybe not in my lifetime but, not too far off.

 

[Instigator]

I think that this is still a democracy. Majority rules kinda thing. If you are the minority and don't like the way things turn out, you can always leave.

 

[Riodog]

I think that this is still a democracy. Majority rules kinda thing. If you are the minority and don't like the way things turn out, you can always leave.

Instigator. Ah f*ckit. Can't you come up with something more intelligent than that?
Rio

 

[Stalkaholic]

[/COLOR]

Instigator. Ah f*ckit. Can't you come up with something more intelligent than that?
Rio

Of course everyone says that until they become part of the minority

 

[OverKill]

Sorry man...how drunk was the person who hit you? My dad and brother rolled 6 times in a van off of a cliff after being hit by a drunk. I don't think it tickled them either. Plenty of blood was shed. The DRUNK driver was 4 times the legal limit. A friend that was in the van eventually did die from complications.

Hey no worries I have adapted to a new life. I was hit by a guy that was 2.5 times over the limit. He died on inpact. I am sorry to hear about your dad and brother, it is no fun for anyone. I just pray one day the light will go on for people that think about driving drunk. Just stay at home, have your friends over and have them stay on the blow up mattress. Have a designated driver, yes even after one beer/drink.

OverKill

 

[HavasuHank]

This I do full heartedly agree with. However...

A certain story comes to mind that was told to me from an ex-CHP officer. An 18 year old kid was pulled over. Kid was breathalyzed and blew over the limit. The kid claimed he had just recently used mouthwash...nobody believed that mouthwash could register over the limit on a breathalyzer, but he stuck to his story.

So as a test, CHP officers one day decided to test the theory. They all rinsed their mouths out with Listerine, then waited 1/2 hour. Then they all blew into their breathalyzers...not one of them could blow under the legal limit.

Also...why is the law based solely on breath alcohol content rather than actual impairment? A person could blow a .08 and not actually be impaired. Alcohol affects everyone differently...a person could be at .12 and drive fine, while another person could be at .05 and feel impairment. And let's take it a step further...people who drive while tired...they may not have any alcohol in their system, but when you're driving while in a fatigued state I would think it would make your driving just as unsafe and dangerous to yourself and others as driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs. Having said that, why is it that nobody ever gets busted for driving while in a state of fatigue?

well i do work rotating shifts and i have been told that working graveyards does mess with your circadian rhythm so much so that after working three graveyard shifts, your body is so worn out that it is comparable to being drunk. i have been so tired coming home that i don't remember some parts of the freeway. i am awake the whole time but it's like if my body is on auto-pilot.

 

[Harley5229]

Alcohol is a depressant drug. It begins to affect you immediately once it is ingested. I think one of the problems with alcohol consumption and then driving that we are all aware of is that many people drink a few and don't "feel" impaired or visually "look" impaired, when in actuality they may very well be.
Alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness in the beginning. It’s called the biphasic (or two part) effect. We all know it impairs judgement. It's a slow (or fast depending on the rate of consumption) process in which can lure someone who is feeling "relaxed" and that they are fine, which leads to, "Well I can have one more" and then suddenly their level of intoxication continues to rise, along with their impairment. It can reduced their ability to correctly evaluate the consequences of their behavior.

People tend to feel better as their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) rises to about .05 (between 1-3 drinks). That’s the first phase or part. If people drink more and their BAC rises above .05, the negative effects of drinking increase such as reflexes impaired, reasoning, depth perception, distance acuity, peripheral vision and glare recovery. That's the second part.

It's very easy to slip between the first phase and second and not realize the changes in your impairment. So just be safe and responsible...when in doubt, wait it out. BAC levels on average drop at about .01 per hour.



OK, so that concludes this lesson...have a great weekend and class dismissed!!

oh and Wicky - :bday!!!!!!

 

[Wicky]

Alcohol is a depressant drug. It begins to affect you immediately once it is ingested. I think one of the problems with alcohol consumption and then driving that we are all aware of is that many people drink a few and don't "feel" impaired or visually "look" impaired, when in actuality they may very well be.
Alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness in the beginning. It’s called the biphasic (or two part) effect. We all know it impairs judgement. It's a slow (or fast depending on the rate of consumption) process in which can lure someone who is feeling "relaxed" and that they are fine, which leads to, "Well I can have one more" and then suddenly their level of intoxication continues to rise, along with their impairment. It can reduced their ability to correctly evaluate the consequences of their behavior.

People tend to feel better as their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) rises to about .05 (between 1-3 drinks). That’s the first phase or part. If people drink more and their BAC rises above .05, the negative effects of drinking increase such as reflexes impaired, reasoning, depth perception, distance acuity, peripheral vision and glare recovery. That's the second part.

It's very easy to slip between the first phase and second and not realize the changes in your impairment. So just be safe and responsible...when in doubt, wait it out. BAC levels on average drop at about .01 per hour.



OK, so that concludes this lesson...have a great weekend and class dismissed!!

oh and Wicky - :bday!!!!!!

Thanks Harley...I think my conclusion is that we need zero tolerance BAC, legalalize open containers, and thus, in theory, reduce the amount of beer cans and bottles that are riddling the sides of our highways, roads, and cities. Trash on the sides of our roads and graffiti piss me off more than most violent criminal acts.

 

[Harley5229]

reduce the amount of beer cans and bottles that are riddling the sides of our highways, roads, and cities. Trash on the sides of our roads and graffiti piss me off more than most violent criminal acts.

No sh*iT! That drives me crazy. :swear

 

[Stalkaholic]

Trash on the sides of our roads and GRAFFITI piss me off more than most violent criminal acts.

I'm sure OCMerrill can relate to problem #2 on this one.

Luckily though, Brown caught the culprit and the man who masterminded the operation

 

[SBjet]

Can anyone here honestly tell me they personally have read all the peer-reviewed, scientific journals out there on the research between .08 and .10and can claim they know that there really is no difference in an average persons state of impairment? I highly doubt it.

I would like to, and I will if you tell me where they are. I am not aware of any research that shows that lowering that limit saved lives. I thought it was completely artificial and contrived after prosecutors complained that too many DUI defendants were acquitted.

 

[LowRiver2]

Sorry Wicky,

Reading your rants about DUI's from Idaho is as relevant as me ranting about wolfs killing cattle in Ca....Pointless.


You live in the sticks where you could drive 50 miles at .20BAC and not see another car.

The rest of us live in areas where you can't travel 50 feet before having the chance to collide with a car, bicyclist, or errant child.

Look at your source: a DUI attorney?, at a convention? Smells of a convention to breed/brainstorm more DUI attorneys.

Let me enlighten you:
Pretty easy to knock a DUI down to a reckless in Ca., expensive, but easy.

I approve bookings for at least 12 DUI's every night I work, only 1 out of 48 last week was .10, the average was .17, the high for the week was .25

Of the 48, 28 were RADIO CALLS TO AN ACCIDENT. THAT MEANS THE COPS WERE CALLED OUT THERE, THEY DID'NT GO HUNTING FOR IT.

This is just for a approx. 15 square mile area. The costs of injury, death from DUI is enormous. Your gripe would have been valid in the 70's, but you forget the shear enormity if the problem due to huge populations in big cities.

Trust me, I have enough crime for my officers to attack where I work, DUI's are a drain on my men to effectively combat crime, but when you have idiots continue to smash into people and property, citizens cry for strict penalties and, after 20 years, this is what you have. The drinkers brought it on themselves, I doubt you'll have many behind your cause with so many people affected by DUI's via injury, life loss, property damage.

In other words, GO FIND ANOTHER WINDMILL, THIS CAUSE IS LOST....

Every Fri. night in LA, we could take all 150 cars and book DUI's, and I'd bet a pay check every one of them would blow over .14. Is .14 safe enough to operate a vehicle in your mind Wicky? I've seen enough carnage to say no in my experiences.

 

[Wicky]

Sorry Wicky,

Reading your rants about DUI's from Idaho is as relevant as me ranting about wolfs killing cattle in Ca....Pointless.


You live in the sticks where you could drive 50 miles at .20BAC and not see another car.

The rest of us live in areas where you can't travel 50 feet before having the chance to collide with a car, bicyclist, or errant child.

Look at your source: a DUI attorney?, at a convention? Smells of a convention to breed/brainstorm more DUI attorneys.

Let me enlighten you:
Pretty easy to knock a DUI down to a reckless in Ca., expensive, but easy.

I approve bookings for at least 12 DUI's every night I work, only 1 out of 48 last week was .10, the average was .17, the high for the week was .25

Of the 48, 28 were RADIO CALLS TO AN ACCIDENT. THAT MEANS THE COPS WERE CALLED OUT THERE, THEY DID'NT GO HUNTING FOR IT.

This is just for a approx. 15 square mile area. The costs of injury, death from DUI is enormous. Your gripe would have been valid in the 70's, but you forget the shear enormity if the problem due to huge populations in big cities.

Trust me, I have enough crime for my officers to attack where I work, DUI's are a drain on my men to effectively combat crime, but when you have idiots continue to smash into people and property, citizens cry for strict penalties and, after 20 years, this is what you have. The drinkers brought it on themselves, I doubt you'll have many behind your cause with so many people affected by DUI's via injury, life loss, property damage.

In other words, GO FIND ANOTHER WINDMILL, THIS CAUSE IS LOST....

Every Fri. night in LA, we could take all 150 cars and book DUI's, and I'd bet a pay check every one of them would blow over .14. Is .14 safe enough to operate a vehicle in your mind Wicky? I've seen enough carnage to say no in my experiences.

No time to continue the rant I have to pick out a new tu-tu for the ballet tonight.....granted there are many holes in your rant that I would like to argue for the sake of arguement.

Now where's that videotape you promised me??

Cheers,

Wicky

 

[Riodog]

"Thanks Harley...I think my conclusion is that we need zero tolerance BAC, legalize open containers, and thus, in theory, reduce the amount of beer cans and bottles that are riddling the sides of our highways, roads, and cities. Trash on the sides of our roads and graffiti piss me off more than most violent criminal acts."

I fixed your spelling for ya Wick.

You noticed that in my rant I did NOT address the DD issue. I purposely omitted it cuz not many appreciate my opinions but I can agree with the 0 tolerance. I wouldn't have my life style altered if there was a 0 tolerance policy and it might just set a good example.

I can remember back in the early eighties when it was legal to cruise down the road in Texas sluggin away on a bottle of Jack. Don't have any numbers to back it up but it didn't change anything much when that law was done away with except you just didn't see it that much. Don't much remember about the litter-> my failing memory I guess.

I do remember back in Boston when the drinking age was 18 and every weekend was a drunkin brawl around the colleges. It had to have bled over to the drunk driving numbers although at the time I was only interested in the drunk coed statistics. Like what is the difference in time that it takes to get her dress off if she's had 3 drinks compared to 4.

Wick, while I am a big proponent of less gov't intervention, less intrusive laws, and the execution of most politicians, I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't believe for a minute that relaxing the laws will solve anything as there is always a certain percentage of any population that will be drunks, dope addicts, etc., and as long as we keep treating them as juvenile brats and lining the lawyers pockets nothing will change. Maybe if we treat then as criminals from the get-go and try them for capital crimes from the first offense it might sink in that this is not socially acceptable and maybe prevent life changing events as Overkill experienced or even worse.

My point is......What is the negative side if we don't engage in the consumption of alcoholic beverages until we get home and do it where it's safe? I personally don't see a down side to this BUT I do see a lot of benefits.

Gentlemen, I will take your arguments now. have at it.

Rio

 

[Troy McClure]

All great democracys in the history of the world have eventually failed and crumbled. Some faster than others. This country and the laws that are put upon its citizens is not headed in the right direction. Sure, right now it is the best place in the world to live. But, our taxes are nearing socialism status. We are becoming a police nation more and more every day. I don't think revolution is too far off. Maybe not in my lifetime but, not too far off.

Unfortunately this is VERY true. Historically, Democracies have only lasted for about 200 years before turning into a Socialized state. As more and more people start sucking on the Gov't teet, they don't think it's wrong to keep pumping money into programs "to help the underprivileged". Also, as Gov't gets bigger and unions stronger, more money is promised for unrealistic salaries and retirement benefits for those on the Gov't payroll.

Sad. That is exactly where we are today in the U.S. which is currently about 231 years old. It may just be in your lifetime.

Oh, and sorry for hi-jacking the DUI thread.

 

[Troy McClure]

I hate being the last poster in a thread. Someone at least tell me I'm an azz hole.

 

[Mr. C]

I hate being the last poster in a thread. Someone at least tell me I'm an azz hole.

You have got to be the F'n biggest azzhole around.

Hope that helps.

 

[atomickitn]

WE have lost or had impaired every freedom and right that the constitution was meant to protect and at the same time giving rights and protections to those (non-citizens) that do not deserve them.

Personally, I am an advocate of a civil revolution in this country and lets start over.


I just know that what we are living under at this moment is not what our founding fathers envisioned and if I remember my history correctly, they revolted didn't they?
Rio[/QUOTE]

this is absolutely the truth.......the American people are getting sick and tired of the B.S and will be taking back their country ...but not soon enough......it is CRAP that a foreigner, has more rights than the people that were born here....and all this political correctness crap has got to stop......oh I am not sorry I have offended you ....you don't like it go back to where ever IT was that you came from....this is OUR country, you live by OUR rules, and constitution.....enough said..