Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That correction tweet is getting blasted too, and rightfully so. They have truly no idea what is going on

The correction:



Technically that’s true. They can’t come 2 hrs after you’ve been home. They can come 1h 59 mins tho.

[adam c]

How can they determine when it’s 2 hours though

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How can they determine when it’s 2 hours though

The same way they estimate speed

[cancer man]

My brother in law now a judge told me about this guy who got pulled over for a burnt out brake bulb and reeked of booze. He blew .21 and he had an interlock. They figured somebody blew for him. What they found out was before he went drinking he blew up his bag pipes and placed the inerlock over the discharge and squeezed and off he went.

[lilmira]

Dammit I’m cancelling my online bag pipe class.

[ExtraSlow]

Hell I'm signing up!

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hell I'm signing up!

Your request for the username change to ExtraBlow has been approved.

[gwill]

theres a video going around on facebook by a guy named David dewolfe. Lives in strathmore in the country. He had some friends over shooting gophers. Cops get called by a pissed off neighbor and a massive police presence shows up.

Everyone ends up in handcuffs. A bunch of people at the house get arrested. Turns out the police charge one guy who was at the house all day babysitting kids with failure to blow. Not sure why their demanding a breathalyzer from someone who was home all day... but they needed to charge the guy with something and that's what they made stick.

Homeowner was arrested but eventually released. Seems like a total crap shoot with lots of other issues.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My brother in law now a judge told me about this guy who got pulled over for a burnt out brake bulb and reeked of booze. He blew .21 and he had an interlock. They figured somebody blew for him. What they found out was before he went drinking he blew up his bag pipes and placed the inerlock over the discharge and squeezed and off he went.

The only fucked up thing about this, is that at .21 he was apparently still driving perfectly fine, and they had to pull him over for some random shit like brake light being out to find out he was "impaired".

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only fucked up thing about this, is that at .21 he was apparently still driving perfectly fine, and they had to pull him over for some random shit like brake light being out to find out he was "impaired".

Signs of a true alcoholic. This happens when your brain has developed a tolerance to alcohol. When you first start drinking hard, your liver develops a tolerance that keeps you at reasonable BAC levels even after heavy drinking. Once the liver begins to fail and loses its ability to process alcohol, BAC levels go up for extended periods of time, and your brain starts to develop a tolerance so you function 100% normal even at double/triple the BAC limit.

[dirtsniffer]

Should they even get the dui at that point?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should they even get the dui at that point?

This started to become an argument (never really grew legs) with the proliferation of alcohol/energy drink combo's. You shouldn't drive while on Benadryl but you likely can with Benadryl Non-Drowsy. Why? They add a stimulant like pseudoephedrine to counteract the depressant. If that's OK, why can't I drive after 4 vodka/RedBulls?
(I'm not saying I should be able to, just pointing out the logic and the logical fallacy.)
This is another reason that the system should move towards simple motor skills and reaction tests and away from BAC tests.
An impairment test should determine if someone is impaired, period. The substance is irrelevant. Prescription drugs, mixed OTC drugs, sleeping pills, roofies, alcohol, meth, heroin, weed, whatever! In fact, there could be no substance at all in the case of exhaustion. Instead, everyone is freaking out trying to quantifiably test THC (because now it's legal) reliably and affordably.

[OTown]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should they even get the dui at that point?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912088/

People who drink regularly may find they need to drink more and more to get the same effect. This phenomenon, called tolerance, is well described, but incompletely understood. Tolerance reduces the visible signs of intoxication. This makes it hard for others, including friends, alcohol servers, and law enforcement officers, to determine the drinker's level of driving impairment. Those who experience tolerance commonly believe that since they can “hold” their alcohol, they are capable of driving safely after drinking. But alcohol reduces the physical and mental dexterity required for safe driving. Studies have determined that the risk of causing a crash rises proportionally with BAC. Even at lower BACs (0.05% to 0.09%), the likelihood of a crash is at least nine times greater than at zero BAC. At very high BACs (at or above 0.15%), the risk of crashing is 300 to 600 times the risk at zero or near-zero BACs.

The science and statistics behind impaired driving seems pretty sound considering people have been doing it since the inception of the car.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should they even get the dui at that point?

There is good reason why it became Driving Under the Influence, as opposed to Impaired Driving. They don't actually care if you're impaired, it's easier to bilk people if they make a blanket law and ignore the actual purpose the law is supposed to fulfil.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should they even get the dui at that point?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is good reason why it became Driving Under the Influence, as opposed to Impaired Driving. They don't actually care if you're impaired, it's easier to bilk people if they make a blanket law and ignore the actual purpose the law is supposed to fulfil.

Slippery slope. It's the exception rather than the norm, and even when you've developed tolerances past your liver, there are still potentially functions that you would be poor at, such as hand-eye. I highly doubt changing BAC laws to accommodate alcoholics would gather any public support. The BAC numbers work in the majority of cases. Even at my heaviest drinking where I've developed liver tolerance, I could drink tons, but stay under 0.08 without issues. When I get past 0.05 I was clearly impaired. It's just interesting to understand why some people can blow 3x the limit and be perfectly normal.

Further reading, summary of all the types of alcohol tolerance, and proper terms.

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa28.htm

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is good reason why it became Driving Under the Influence, as opposed to Impaired Driving. They don't actually care if you're impaired, it's easier to bilk people if they make a blanket law and ignore the actual purpose the law is supposed to fulfil.

I think it's more likely about the most esteemed, professional attorneys and their graduated brethren attorneys (judges) creating a system that guarantees the need for their services (at extortion pricing) for decades and decades when they should barely be needed, at all.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's more likely about the most esteemed, professional attorneys and their graduated brethren attorneys (judges) creating a system that guarantees the need for their services (at extortion pricing) for decades and decades when they should barely be needed, at all.

Yes exactly. As I mentioned.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is good reason why it became Driving Under the Influence, as opposed to Impaired Driving. They don't actually care if you're impaired, it's easier to BILK people if they make a blanket law and ignore the actual purpose the law is supposed to fulfil.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Slippery slope. It's the exception rather than the norm, and even when you've developed tolerances past your liver, there are still potentially functions that you would be poor at, such as hand-eye. I highly doubt changing BAC laws to accommodate alcoholics would gather any public support. The BAC numbers work in the majority of cases. Even at my heaviest drinking where I've developed liver tolerance, I could drink tons, but stay under 0.08 without issues. When I get past 0.05 I was clearly impaired. It's just interesting to understand why some people can blow 3x the limit and be perfectly normal.

Further reading, summary of all the types of alcohol tolerance, and proper terms.

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa28.htm

It's more my concern that the predominant focus seems to be alcohol, when there is a smorgasbord of other issues causing drivers to be impaired.

[Rat Fink]

.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Driving under the influence doesn’t exist in Canada. Impaired driving didn’t become that. There is no section of the Canadian Criminal Code for DUI so what country are you armchair quarterbacking laws from today?

The USA. I know that in Canada rights don't mean shit, and we just blindly convict people for things with no burden of proof. What conjecture are you in parroting today?

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The USA. I know that in Canada rights don't mean shit, and we just blindly convict people for things with no burden of proof. What conjecture are you in parroting today?

We dont live in America. We have vastly different standards when it comes to policing, driving and criminal law. Completely different systems in fact.

And yes, for things like traffic infractions the law allows for conviction without anything except a witness statement.