Crapo arrested on DUI

[minionofmidas]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

Coerced therapy is useless to its nominal aims and not really any sort of therapy at all, but it feeds a lot of people (and feeds them well) out of the public purse without officially swelling the ranks of government employees. Besides, it's cheaper than jailing middle class offenders and preserves their respectability. From the point of view of bourgeois democracy, it's a win-win-win-win.

[© tweed]

And if you are able to drive normal at BAC 0.09, you won't get pulled over.

false.  random checkpoints.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Are those more of an East Coast thing or something? I've never ran into one or had to do a breathalyzer test.

Even if legal those are still insanely stupid, common sense dictates that pulling over a bunch of people at random as opposed to looking for signs of drunk driving will end up netting significantly less drunk drivers.

[minionofmidas]

Are those more of an East Coast thing or something? I've never ran into one or had to do a breathalyzer test.

Even if legal those are still insanely stupid, common sense dictates that pulling over a bunch of people at random as opposed to looking for signs of drunk driving will end up netting significantly less drunk drivers.

Not if you choose times and locations wisely.

[Alcon]

Are those more of an East Coast thing or something? I've never ran into one or had to do a breathalyzer test.

Even if legal those are still insanely stupid, common sense dictates that pulling over a bunch of people at random as opposed to looking for signs of drunk driving will end up netting significantly less drunk drivers.

I'm sure it's basically entirely meant to discourage people who are convinced they're good drivers when they're drunk.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Even if true that doesn't make what I said false. Furthermore common sense also dictates it makes more sense to catch people who are drunk and show signs of it than people who aren't. I know that sounds like what SPC is saying, but we all know if there wasn't a DUI limit at all we'd have hordes of people driving and insisting that they are perfectly OK to do so even if they were at something like 0.15.

[minionofmidas]

Even if true that doesn't make what I said false. Furthermore common sense also dictates it makes more sense to catch people who are drunk and show signs of it than people who aren't. I know that sounds like what SPC is saying, but we all know if there wasn't a DUI limit at all we'd have hordes of people driving and insisting that they are perfectly OK to do so even if they were at something like 0.15.

...and more to the point, actually aren't perfectly OK but merely still able to remain entirely accident-free as long as everybody else around them is a model driver.

[Alcon]

Even if true that doesn't make what I said false. Furthermore common sense also dictates it makes more sense to catch people who are drunk and show signs of it than people who aren't. I know that sounds like what SPC is saying, but we all know if there wasn't a DUI limit at all we'd have hordes of people driving and insisting that they are perfectly OK to do so even if they were at something like 0.15.

I agree with that part, I just don't think it necessarily makes the policy stupid overall, for the reason I pointed out.

[© tweed]

they exist so cops can target people they want to target and try to get big drug scores.  blacks and poors and young males.

[7,052,770]

I got pulled over in Louisiana one night for no good reason and the cop made me do sobriety tests and shined a light in my eyes, even when I told him I hadn't had alcohol in years and was very obviously not drunk.

I'm pretty sure he was trying to meet a quota or just hoping I had drugs in the car.  He asked if he could look in my trunk, but when I told him yes he didn't do it.

[© tweed]

I'm pretty sure he was trying to meet a quota or just hoping I had drugs in the car.  He asked if he could look in my trunk, but when I told him yes he didn't do it.

NEVER say yes!  next thing you know a bag of coke appears out of nowhere.

[7,052,770]

I'm pretty sure he was trying to meet a quota or just hoping I had drugs in the car.  He asked if he could look in my trunk, but when I told him yes he didn't do it.

NEVER say yes!  next thing you know a bag of coke appears out of nowhere.

I mean, it's not like the cop is actually going to plant drugs in my car.  I felt like letting him look in the trunk would get me out of there faster, but it didn't really since he had to shine his light in my eyes first.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

There are those on this forum who will say anything to get attention.  Tweed, Opebo, etc. will espouse insane and illogical and dangerous views because we react to them.

[© tweed]

I mean, it's not like the cop is actually going to plant drugs in my car.

nah they neverrrrr do that

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well Harry is white.

[Sbane]

Alcohol has one of the worst rebound effects of any drug, so the criminalization of drunk driving provides an inherent impetus for those who live in suburbia and don't want to spend the next day in a do-nothing hangover state to DD, limit one's consumption to a couple of beers, drive everyone home safely, and be productive the next day.

Driving under the influence of marijuana should be a more nuanced law. I would implement the bullsh**t .08 equivalent WA has in major cities as well as suburban municipalities during morning and evening rush hour (say 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM). This protects both the driver and others - it's not a pleasant feeling to be driving excessively high in environments with a lot of traffic and pedestrians, but there's really no discernible difference between driving high or sober on empty suburban or rural streets.

I think in general, intoxication due to Marijuana use should be judged with field sobriety tests. Someone with a high tolerance can certainly drive much better at a much higher blood concentration level than someone who smoked for the first time. Still, from what I have read the Washington law isn't too bad. I think it only checks for THC and not even its active metabolite. And THC undergoes rapid metabolism and in any case quickly partitions into fat tissue as opposed to hanging out in your aqueous blood.

[Link]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

There are those on this forum who will say anything to get attention.  Tweed, Opebo, etc. will espouse insane and illogical and dangerous views because we react to them.

I think the strawman you are quoting is something that was designed just "to get attention."  If someone is drunk and driving that is clearly a problem and I don't see anyone in this thread defending that sort of behavior.  The problem with you and your attention seeking friend is somewhere along the way someone forgot to teach you, people are unique and no one with a high school level of science knowledge would ever make the ridiculous claim that one blood level obtained by a suspect test like a breathalyzer is definitive proof of the same level of mental impairment in 100% of the population 100% of the time.  And it is certainly not enough to label one person completely fine and one person a felon.  Breathalyzers and the 0.08% limit are a farce and a joke.

It's unbelievable in a first world country with a constitution people are routinely imprisoned with nothing more than a 0.08% breathalyzer result and the half @$$ed testimony of a cop.  I mean if 0.08% was used for something like a modest fine I could understand.  But a felony conviction?!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Are those more of an East Coast thing or something? I've never ran into one or had to do a breathalyzer test.

They are a gummit funded staple here......after 10PM on a weekend, beware.

[Boris]

It's unbelievable in a first world country with a constitution people are routinely imprisoned with nothing more than a 0.08% breathalyzer result and the half @$$ed testimony of a cop.  I mean if 0.08% was used for something like a modest fine I could understand.  But a felony conviction?!

The vast majority of developed countries have stricter drunk driving laws (BAC-wise) than the United States.  IIRC, .08 is only the USA, Canada, Liechtenstein, and New Zealand.

[Badger]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

There are those on this forum who will say anything to get attention.  Tweed, Opebo, etc. will espouse insane and illogical and dangerous views because we react to them.

I think the strawman you are quoting is something that was designed just "to get attention."  If someone is drunk and driving that is clearly a problem and I don't see anyone in this thread defending that sort of behavior.  The problem with you and your attention seeking friend is somewhere along the way someone forgot to teach you, people are unique and no one with a high school level of science knowledge would ever make the ridiculous claim that one blood level obtained by a suspect test like a breathalyzer is definitive proof of the same level of mental impairment in 100% of the population 100% of the time.  And it is certainly not enough to label one person completely fine and one person a felon.  Breathalyzers and the 0.08% limit are a farce and a joke.

It's unbelievable in a first world country with a constitution people are routinely imprisoned with nothing more than a 0.08% breathalyzer result and the half @$$ed testimony of a cop.  I mean if 0.08% was used for something like a modest fine I could understand.  But a felony conviction?!

I'm going to ignore the usual brigade of attention whores and libertards, but I respect you enough, Link, to tell you you're just plain wrong here.

Most people reach the point of appreciable impairment (the standard legal definition for "under the influence") once they pass a .04 BAC level. The large majority of people reach that past .06 to .07. At .08 BAC even the 1 in a 1000 exceptional individual on the bell curve for alcohol tolerance (whether due to personal metabolism and/or drinking habits or a combination) IS to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty appreciably impaired in their mental/physical coordination/driving abilities.

The .08 legal standard actually is already high enough to include a number of people who are actually under the influence (and fun fact: people can be and are convicted of DUI when they're under a .08 but have had too much to drink to adequately control their driving, they just aren't per se guilty for a prohibited BAC) in order to protect the rights of the small minority with high tolerance.

I base this on having presented the testimony and reports of VERY knowledgeable forensic toxicologists who know as much on the subject as anyone in Ohio. I'll spare you the hours of scientific jargon and simply summarize: "You're wrong".