Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think will happen with DUI's when marijuana is legalized? Understand, MANY persons arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, just left the public bar, the public restaurant, etc. So now, you are going to legalize marijuana (and soon after, other drugs, just a matter of time). You can go to the restaurant and smoke a joint in the outside area; its legal, right? Now that person gets behind the wheel of a car. What is going to be the THC legal level? Any at all? One joint? Two joints? Oh, but wait, what if the marijuana is from British Columbia? Much stronger then California marijuana. Oh the problems...
And, race fans, its just the tip of the iceburg. Marijuana will be, one day, legal. As will other drugs. What do you do then? DUI rates are high now, because you CAN drink and drive.
I have no problem with people smoking pot, but my only argument against it being legalized is just this - it's hard to detect and as with booze, people WILL get in their cars and drive.
My solution: decriminalize it, but don't allow it to be as "legal" as it is in The Netherlands....in other words, let people do it at home, but do not allow it to be sold in coffee shops or elsewhere.
Then we should ban drinking in public, no alcohol in restaurants, no alcohol at wedding receptions, no alcohol at sporting events etc. and close all bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
if 1/3 of all drivers on the road were intoxicated, then you might have a point. however that is not the case by a long shot. intoxicated drivers account for perhaps 10% of all driver on the road, but they account for, by your numbers, 1/3 of all traffic fatalities, which means we need to step up and do everything we can to eliminate intoxicated driving.
so i guess you would like to see the 18th amendment reinstated?
Nope..........absolutely not, in fact, I think .08 is too low.
I quoted another poster who thought no one should be aloud to drink anything and drive, not even one drink.
The point I was making was that the only way to accomplish that would be to ban drinking everywhere except at home. In the real world, every patron in a resturant that has a drink of wine cannot be expected to take a taxi home and then call a taxi again the next day to go back and get their car.
We lock people up for marijuana possession. Now I don't smoke the stuff, but I don't agree with locking people up for it. IMO, jails should be used to house people who are a threat to society in some way, shape or form. I lump repeat drunk drivers in that category. If you've been caught more than twice, you need to serve jail time and you are a danger to the general public (the same applies to sober reckless drivers who believe they are above the law).
I highly doubt that a complete ban on drunk driving would be passed in any state, but I would support such a ban. I can honestly sit here and tell you that I have never driven under the influence of alcohol. If you go out and have a few drinks, there are plenty of other options, rather than choosing to drive home.
The repeat offenders in your DUI classes are alcoholics. For starters, they need their licenses removed and in all honesty, they'd be better off in jail, for safety's sake. I have zero sympathy for people who engage in such reckless behavior.
I have to disagree with you. Not ALL repeat offenders are alcoholics. That is painting someone and people, with a broad brush. That maybe your opinion, however, your opinion flys in the face of all professionals, including myself. I am the first one to put someone in jail for drunk driving.
22 yrs ago, my first call for service, was a traffic accident. 3 dead and the driver of the suspect vehicle DUI (back then, .10 was the legal limit and he was a .10). I gave CPR to a 3 month old who was, in all honesty, probably dead at the time.
Not EVERYONE arrested for a second or even third DUI is an alcoholic. That is a very myopic viewpoint, usually made by people who have no clue what they are talking about.
I have to disagree with you. Not ALL repeat offenders are alcoholics. That is painting someone and people, with a broad brush. That maybe your opinion, however, your opinion flys in the face of all professionals, including myself. I am the first one to put someone in jail for drunk driving.
22 yrs ago, my first call for service, was a traffic accident. 3 dead and the driver of the suspect vehicle DUI (back then, .10 was the legal limit and he was a .10). I gave CPR to a 3 month old who was, in all honesty, probably dead at the time.
Not EVERYONE arrested for a second or even third DUI is an alcoholic. That is a very myopic viewpoint, usually made by people who have no clue what they are talking about.
Then to me, if they're not alcoholics, that excuses them even less from their reckless behavior. Again, no sympathy here for people like that. Seriously, what kind of person (if they're not an alcoholic) gets into a car drunk time and time again (and again)? There's just something morally f**ked up about that, sorry. People make mistakes, but to make the same mistakes time and time again (mistakes that endanger life)...c'mon.
I guess I wouldn't be such a great guy to have around in a DUI class.
Then we should ban drinking in public, no alcohol in restaurants, no alcohol at wedding receptions, no alcohol at sporting events etc. and close all bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your.Decision
That's not the point. You can drink in bars, restaurants and at home. However, you don't need to grab your keys and drive home after getting sloshed at a local bar. There are other options....taxi, call a friend or family member, appoint a "designated driver" (if you're in a group) or failing that, crash the night at a hotel or a friend's house.
Again, I was answering another poster who said no one should drink anything at all and drive. My statement alone is out of context.
There is a big difference between getting sloshed and .08. Most people who have a couple of drinks are not going to call a taxi or a friend to take them home, and again the next day, to take them back to get their car. Stay at a hotel or friends........again.........you have to get someone to drive you there and back. It is just not going to happen.
If society was really serious about stopping drinking and driving, it would have to ban drinking in public..........which I am against, by the way.
Society will not ban public drinking.........there is too much money at stake. {The same goes for smoking.}
Most people that leave a bar would blow .08 or over. If police officers sat outside of bars and pulled over everyone that did a California roll or didn't use a turn signal, there wouldn't be one bar anywhere still in business........that is a fact and everyone knows it.
I was just trying to point out the hypocracy of it all.
Again, I was answering another poster who said no one should drink anything at all and drive. My statement alone is out of context.
There is a big difference between getting sloshed and .08. Most people who have a couple of drinks are not going to call a taxi or a friend to take them home, and again the next day, to take them back to get their car. Stay at a hotel or friends........again.........you have to get someone to drive you there and back. It is just not going to happen.
If society was really serious about stopping drinking and driving, it would have to ban drinking in public..........which I am against, by the way.
Society will not ban public drinking.........there is too much money at stake. {The same goes for smoking.}
Most people that leave a bar would blow .08 or over. If police officers sat outside of bars and pulled over everyone that did a California roll or didn't use a turn signal, there wouldn't be one bar anywhere still in business........that is a fact and everyone knows it.
I was just trying to point out the hypocracy of it all.
Annie, the point is that you can go out and drink, but you don't have to drive home. I know society will never ban it completely....these are just my own opinions on the matter. If I had my way, cars would come equipped with breathalyzers, which would prevent any of the drunk driving from happening. However, certain lobbies are too powerful and the will isn't really there to do so. It also doesn't help that much of America is very car-centric.
I got a DUI about a year ago. It was my first, although an enhanced DUI due to my insanely high tolerance for the booze, but I don't think it was easy on me at all. A $1,000 fine. Two years on probation which I am exactly half way through. Supervised that is. Spent thirty days on work release, in which I paid the jail rent for $175 a week. I take UAs once to twice a week which cover not only drugs, but alcohol as well, they cost $20 each. I failed one for alcohol once and had to wear a moniter on my ankle for sixty days which cost me $755. If I fail another UA, I go to jail for 120 days. I am in my 56th hour of class and counting.
I just don't think consider that a lenient sentence. I think I deserved it, so I am not complaining but I think the punishment fit the crime. If I was in prison what good would that do? If first time DUI offenders got prison time, the prison population would be increased tenfold. And while you're in prison you suck money from the government rather than contribute through income taxes.
Then to me, if they're not alcoholics, that excuses them even less from their reckless behavior. Again, no sympathy here for people like that. Seriously, what kind of person (if they're not an alcoholic) gets into a car drunk time and time again (and again)? There's just something morally f**ked up about that, sorry. People make mistakes, but to make the same mistakes time and time again (mistakes that endanger life)...c'mon.
I guess I wouldn't be such a great guy to have around in a DUI class.
You are kidding, right? Guess what? I am the ENEMY? People say the police are the enemy and hate us (me). If it weren't for the police, they wouldn't be in DUI School. Liberal policies have shown there is no such thing as personal responsibility; its always someone else's fault.
I have no sympathy either. I am being EQUAL. The laws are not. Like it or not, DUI's are prosecuted more then any other crime. That includes the wife beater. Yep, the guy who smacks the **** out of his wife, gets less of a punishment, then a drunk driver.
I made 134 DWI arrests of which 131 were BATs over 0.15, one is a DUI, one was Impaired Driving and one unfounded.
I conducted field sobriety tests on all persons suspected of DWI and never violated their civil rights. The first part of the test was to hand over the driver's license. If someone handed me a credit card, Student ID, Library Card, military ID, photo of their children, money or couldn't get their license out of their wallet or purse without taking 30 minutes the failed that part of the test. Of course, professional drunks always have their driver's license readily accessible. At which point I would ask them to step out of the vehicle. Some fell down, some had to lean on the vehicle to support themselves, and other did fairly well (especially the professional drunks). Then we would walk to the rear of the vehicle at which point I would go to hand them their license and intentional drop it on the ground. Many fell on their face trying to get it or spent 5-6 minutes stumbling all over the place trying to pick it up. At that point they would get a breathalyzer test.
I could have arrested quite a few people who blew approaching 0.15 but didn't because they weren't drunk.
That's an important point.
Alcohol is a drug, and like every single drug on the market, it affects people in different ways. It's ludicrous to insist that everyone who has a BAT of 0.08 is drunk when science disputes that.
Conditions that can affect someone drinking alcohol are the amount of sleep in the last 24 hours; the amount and quality of sleep over the last 3-5 days, the amount of food eaten over the last 12 hours (if you're going to drink you need to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner); the quantity and type of food eaten (carbohydrates delay alcohol absorption while proteins speed it up); prescription medication; OTC medication; height/weight/body mass; other conditions like diabetes; attitude; stress and state of mind (happy, sad, angry, ambivalent etc); the type of alcoholic beverages; genetics; and of course, tolerance to alcohol.
As I said, it's more than absurd to make a blanket statement like a BAT of 0.8 means you're drunk.
If drugs affected everyone in the same way, then there would only be Prozac, but they don't and Prozac doesn't work for everyone so they have to use Paxil, and then that doesn't work for everyone so some have to use Cymbalta (I guess because the music in the commercial is really good) and then some are stuck with Sertraline HCL or Elavil or Seroquel.
I'm certain the MADD gangsters are probably livid by now, but I've both participated in and observed their scam "tests" they conduct. In the only one I participated in, one of the MADD people kept telling me I was ****-faced. I said dude I've only had two swallows and it's been less than 15 minutes it isn't even in my bloodstream yet. But that's how the run their little "studies." You've got people constantly telling you that you're falling down drunk even before you take your first drink, yeah, the power of suggestion is very powerful. People will start playing the role they've been given and act drunk even though the aren't.
I don't believe in jail time for drunks. If you really want to do something, then start confiscating their vehicles and levying heavy fines on them. Some say that punishes the family, well, it's obviously a family problem and if that motivates the family to get involved and do something, then so be it.
Another option which I have tried to get the Ohio legislature to act on (and whose time may have come especially if I repackage the idea) is Privilege Cards.
Basically, you pay a fee to the state, say, $100 annually for a Privilege Card that lets you gamble, buy lotto tickets, buy tobacco and buy alcohol.
If someone is driving "drunk" or even if someone is involved in an alcohol related incident like an assault, or public intox the state can suspend their alcohol privileges (and of course for people on welfare you can suspend their gambling and tobacco privileges in addition to alcohol).
In spite of what Deputy Dawg says, if you're arrested more than once for DWI, you're an alcoholic. Ain't no one that unlucky (that would most likely fall under the category of weekend binge drinker -- a form of alcoholism).
I will say this, I have a greater fear of being struck by a vehicle driven by someone who is texting, sexting, surfing or chatting on their cell-phone than I do of an encounter with someone under the influence.
A police officer caused a five car pile up when he hit the car in front of him.
He was DUI.............they said he blew two and a half times the legal limit.
No one was seriously injured.
Will be interesting to see what happens next.
{I live in Ohio}
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
