Lowering legal limit to .05?

[Guest PapaB]

I agree on every aspect. Understand that states get teased with millions of dollars then states get bought off into following the NTSB's advice. Second, do we want to let serial killers, rapist, meth cooks and such people out of jail to make room for grandpa who has 4 DUI's in 4 years? I wish we did have room for the repeat DUI offenders but we don't.

 

Well now you've found another of my pet peeves. I know the courts have ruled overcrowding is cruel and unusual punishment but I think they disagree with the Founding Fathers. Overcrowding could reach cruel levels but the courts are not even approaching that saturation. Also, using tax dollars differently would allow for building more room at jails. Cut out the taxpayer expenses of cable tv, movies and providing college educations. Require prisoners work toward their keep, there are a lot of things they could do. Fill some of the prisons currently empty around the country. Build regional jails to handle overflow from the participating cities, towns and counties. Basically, stop making prisoners so comfy, take a lesson from Sheriff Joe in AZ and treat them humanely, but not like welcome visitors.

[Patton]

I never drink away from home except if staying in a hotel and have no forseeable need or intention to drive til the next day. If I decided to go out on the town for a drink, which doesn't even sound like fun nowadays, I'd take a cab. So the exact alcohol level doesn't personally concern me. Though I'm "anti too many laws" on general principle.

One BAC consideration, not advocating, merely mentioning-- Decades ago when I worked in substance abuse counseling, research had shown that pot and alcohol strongly potentiate each other. Maybe since then that research has been invalidated, dunno.

Some people (not all) have metabolisms such that their driving capacities are not strongly impaired by a marijuana buzz, but supposedly marijuana combined with even ONE beer can impair many people worse than MANY beers but no pot.

The desire to lower the allowable limit, per say, to .05 probably doesn't have anything to do with drug impairment. A common thing told to stoners is to drink two beers if you plan to drive high so the police will think you are drunk with a low BAC and not high. Those two beers will make you really impaired at only .03. The reason they drink two beers is for when they get on a machine the police will think they are sobering up and they hope the police will not do a blood draw. It is common practice around here to do a blood draw after you find a low/no BAC because there is a great chance there is a trace of drugs in their system.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks Patton that is interesting to know.

 

That sounds so stupid if stoners will drink a beer to try to hide pot intoxication. Pot alone will throw some folks for a loop. Decades ago when I tried it, pot made me so stupid I probably would have scored a negative IQ, and absolutely zero short-term memory. I'd try to play a song and couldn't remember what verse we were in. Embarrassing. However, some research (and some people I've met) has shown that SOME people are not drastically incapacitated by pot alone, so for those persons it would be so dumb to add-in the alcohol that would make em seriously deficient in combination with the pot.

[Patton]

And there is no hurry to get a blood sample when most drugs are the reason for impairment.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And there is no hurry to get a blood sample when most drugs are the reason for impairment.

 

Thanks Patton

 

That makes sense. Guess the half life of most chemicals would be quite long outside the body where they are not being metabolised, or at least not a lot.

 

Do you get an impression from your work experience, which kinds of drugs most often come back positive on blood tests nowadays? Which drugs most often lead to DUI prosecutions? The "most popular" substances which impair driving sufficiently to get people pulled over?

 

If blood tests are real common nowadays, would the typical policeman get annoyed if a suspect were to request a blood test rather than breathalyzer? I'm ignorant of modern technology but from remembrance of old-tech, would expect a blood test to be more accurate in clearing oneself of suspicion (assuming one is innocent) compared to a breathalyzer? In the old days, suspects would be transported to the emergency room to draw blood. Do ya'll still do that, or do you have officers trained to do phlebotomies in the field or at the police station?

 

Apologies so many questions, but it is an interesting topic.

 

Are modern "routine" tox screens accurately specific or fairly generic? Decades ago, if we wanted specificity we had to pay more money for the test, when we would send out tox screens to discover whether clients were staying clean.

 

For instance, would a modern "routine" report merely list "amphetamines" as a generic class, or would it be smart enough to know the difference between for instance dexadrine, dextro-methamphetamine, or mixed amphetamines like adderall, versus "harmless" stuff such as levo-methamphetamine (non-psychotropic over the counter vicks nasal inhaler)? Would it report "opioid" as a generic class, or could it distinguish between dilaudid or hydrocodone versus an innocent citizen with IBS who takes over the counter non-psychotropic loperamide, or a citizen with osteo-arthritis who takes non-psychotropic prescription tramadol?

 

Just curious. If the test is real specific then it could avoid courtroom hassles for people taking legit medications.

[TripleDigitRide]

Why can't people just not drive when they drink any amount of alcohol or partake in some recreational drug use?

[Patton]

The officer decides which test will be taken and the suspect can refuse. Normally you just transport the suspect to the ER for the draw. As far as drug impairment after the results are recieved you just have to go to a chart to see what everything is and how much is present. We see mostly in this order pills, pot, and then meth on drug impairement. I really don't know what the allowable limit is in regards to how much consumed but impost are 10x the legal limit so it must not take much to be over. Actually we normally see several drugs present in their system. Edited May 21, 2013 by Patton

[LagerHead]

It's the Temperance movement all over.  I say F, the mothers!

 

I'm sorry, but there is a HUGE difference. Having a drink doesn't kill people who have never met you. Having a drink and driving kills thousands of people who have never met the offending driver every single year. Nobody is saying don't drink. But if you drink and drive and kill someone, nothing the legal system can throw at you is nearly good enough. 

 

Wish the NTSB would spend half as much time addressing cell phone use, girl texting a friend about commencement rear ended me last week while I was sitting still waiting on the light to change on west end in broad daylight.  :rant:

 

I'm a motorcycle rider. If I had to make a guess I would say around 95% of the people who have almost turned my into a bloody, gory mess on the streets have been either texting or talking on their cell phone. I honestly have as little regard for people on their phone while driving as those driving drunk. It is every bit as dangerous if not more. And so far the evidence seems to suggest more.

 

I need to see the statistics on accidents where the drivers BAC was between .05 and .08 before even commenting on this.  I suspect it would not be higher than those below .05

 

Anything that legitimately reduces DUI fatalities, I'm all for, but something that just criminalizes something for no other reason than to allow a politician to say "Look i did something" is a waste of time.

 

Generally anything a politician does is a waste of time. 

 

I think the DUI laws in regard to the statutory limit are fine as they are right now.  You can already be convicted with a below statutory limit BAC, the police just have to prove it with more than just the BAC.  If I were to change anything with DUI's it would be in the punishment portion not the statutory limit.  Mainly I would like to see 3rd offense DUI become the felony charge instead of 4th offense currently.

 

You spelled 1st wrong. If you drink and drive you should lose your license, your car, and spend a significant amount of time in jail. If you think that's too harsh, drink at your own damn house. 

 

What I find...amusing? is that not a single person on this board would hesitate to jump down the throat of someone who drinks and shoots. And yet, even though cars kill orders of magnitude more people every year so many are quick to defend drinking and driving. Seriously, what's up with that?

[RobertNashville]

Yet another example of a government agency that exists and since it exists, it must DO something and in typical government fashion, they address a problem with half-assed measures that really do nothing worthwhile at all.

 

I don't drink anything and drive...period; I don't need some government bureaucrat telling me how much I'm "allowed" to have.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Why can't people just not drive when they drink any amount of alcohol or partake in some recreational drug use?

 

I agree with the question's sentiment but dunno if there is any answer. There are so many flippant answers-- Because they are stupid, or selfish, or just don't care, or are completely incapable of considering consequences, or they think they are immune to the substances, or they think they are immortal, can't happen to them. Etc.

 

Many years ago was in traffic court begging off a "rolling stop" ticket. It was before 9 am and there was this guy who had numerous driving arrests, then a DUI on suspended license. He had been out on bail. The man showed up to court staggering drunk, barely able to stand facing the judge. Most likely because he knew that getting drunk that morning before court was his last chance to "tie one on" for 11-29 or however long until they let him out. Seems more than a little pitiful that the fella could repeatedly screw up that many times in a row. Almost like he had absolutely no control to behave any differently.

 

The officer decides which test will be taken and the suspect can refuse. Normally you just transport the suspect to the ER for the draw. As far as drug impairment after the results are recieved you just have to go to a chart to see what everything is and how much is present. We see mostly in this order pills, pot, and then meth on drug impairement. I really don't know what the allowable limit is in regards to how much consumed but impost are 10x the legal limit so it must not take much to be over. Actually we normally see several drugs present in their system.

 

Thanks for the good info, Patton.

 

So they have "threshold levels" for drugs as well as alcohol nowadays? Makes sense but unexpected. Guess I figgered they would throw the book at any person who had any detectable level of non-prescription controlled substances, merely because they are illegal.

 

I'm not understanding the lingo on "impost are 10x the legal limit". What is an impost? Thanks.