It really boils down to how they define "intoxicated"

Post #219,156 by bionerd 8/13/05 11:58:23 AM Reply	It really boils down to how they define "intoxicated" The only defining objective criteria used to define intoxication is the blood alcohol level. There are no other objective criteria. Roadside sobriety tests screen for certain behaviors, but not every drunk person is going to display the exact same behaviors. And they're are going to have a hard time proving the causal factors behind those behaviors. I can say the alphabet forwards and backwards, no matter how drunk I am. A person with neurological impairments, or even corns or bunions, may not be able to walk a straight line. Without a BAL, how do you prove someone is intoxicated? It is true that everyone metabolizes etoh differently. I've seen people with a BAL over .3 look completely sober, but you know there is some level of impairment even if it isnt subjectively obvious. Would you want this person behind the wheel? I wouldnt. VA will find itself wading in a can of worms with this one.
Post #219,158 by Another Scott 8/13/05 12:18:48 PM Reply	Yup. Without a BAL, how do you prove someone is intoxicated? Dunno. As you say, there's no really good, objective way to know for sure. But DUI is more about driving than public intoxication. Otherwise, bars and restaurants and clubs should have limits on how much alcohol they could serve a person, shouldn't they? I don't think there's a good solution to the problem of keeping drunks off the road (short of some magical (perfect) car sensor that prevents operation by impaired drivers). As it stands now, it's perfectly legal (AFAIK) to drive to a bar, drink 15 shots of whiskey and drive home. The bartender won't get in trouble unless it's clear that the person is drunk. Even though that much whiskey would surely increase the BAC far beyond 0.08. By having the law written (as it apparently is in some cases) that DUI == (BAC > 0.08), then there seems to be a conflict. Like you, I don't want drunks deciding on their own that they're fine and driving off and killing or maiming people. But either DUI convictions should be based on something more than just a BAC (something that illustrates actual intoxication), or the law should be called "Driving while BAC > 0.08". I'd have no problem with that - it's objective and there are reasonable reasons to have such a standard. But I think determination intoxication or impairment should (somehow) be based on how a person acts, not on how much alcohol (or whatever) they've consumed or how much is in their blood. A 85 year old man who's zonked out on percocet is as much a danger as a 19 year old who's had 3 pitchers of beer... Cheers, Scott.
Post #219,159 by boxley 8/13/05 12:21:30 PM Reply	intoxicated does not equal impaired Did you every ee the McGill University study on impairment? 12 shots plus a joint of good quality weed. 1/2 the shots and 1/2 the weed were placebos. Driving skill test with pylons and emergency stops with a light that flashed and re-action time to shut it off. Person who had the best score, sober or drunk was a 105 lb young lady who had no placebos, she actually scored better after the booze. Now what this indicates to me that a level of intoxication does not suggest impairment unless coupled with a dificulty steering a vehicle which is an observable offence of its own. This does preclude stops "just because" the determining thru investigative detention that the person stopped may have had a drink which leads to a presumptive conviction based on the BAC levels. Perhaps a discovery of BAC overage should be followed by in appointment for a confined roadway intoxicant test where the BAC is matched then the person drives a course of medium dificulty, based on that the charge is either forwarded or dropped. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,165 by mmoffitt 8/13/05 1:41:37 PM Reply	Good idea, but time would be the issue. You're stopped at 11pm. How long until you take the qualifying tests? Long enough to "sober up?" If so, what you did at 11pm is no longer being tested. I don't have an answer for this, but my initial thoughts were along your lines. Then I thought better of it. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #219,172 by boxley 8/13/05 3:53:42 PM Reply	you missed "make an appointment" at a later date in the testing facilities you injest alcohol until your BAC is he same as the violation BAC then take the test. Charge for the drinks to cover the cost of the test, than, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,182 by Ashton 8/13/05 5:54:06 PM Reply	{chortle} too sane for US Law.
Post #219,346 by jb4 8/15/05 10:04:43 AM Reply	+5 cogent! But I agree, too sane for US jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #219,350 by mmoffitt 8/15/05 10:21:15 AM Reply	Okay, but how do you replicate the situation entirely? Unless you buy that the same BAC effects the human in exactly the same way every time. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #219,352 by boxley 8/15/05 10:45:27 AM Reply	speaking as an expert :-) that is as close as you are going to get to a recreation. Remember an accused would not go thru the expense as a failure would be evidentiary in nature unless they had reasonable grounds for success. Also a pee test to ensure that meth or other illegal stimulants wernt giving an assist. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #219,185 by imqwerky 8/13/05 6:15:47 PM Reply	Video games to the rescue! Then why not have the ol' Sega Steering Wheel in the cop's trunk. Set that puppy up in no time and have a go at a couple of courses right then and there. Seems to me that would indicate a good sense of sobriety. FWIW. Peesh,(hiccup) Amy Illegitimi non corborundum.
Post #219,169 by pwhysall 8/13/05 2:28:08 PM Reply	The only sensible measure... ...is > 0 mg. Anything else WILL impair your driving ability. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,171 by Andrew Grygus 8/13/05 3:32:57 PM Reply	Yes, but it takes quite a lot to impair your driving . . . . . as thoroughly as talking on a cell phone does. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #219,203 by pwhysall 8/13/05 8:30:07 PM Reply	Drink does that quite effectively. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,279 by ben_tilly 8/14/05 11:16:28 PM Reply	Andrew is right though Drink impairs you. But it takes a lot of drink to match the impairment of being on your cellphone. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,311 by pwhysall 8/15/05 2:04:46 AM Reply	You can stop being on your phone much quicker... ..than you can sober up. That's not to say that you should yammer on your phone whilst driving; the twin factors of concentrating on a phone conversation and only having one hand available make it a risky proposition. I get round this by having my passenger answer my phone, or by turning it off if I'm driving alone. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #219,313 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 2:09:39 AM Reply	Only one hand available is irrelevant Research suggests that handfree headsets are as bad as traditional cell phones. The distraction is the issue. In particular distraction that pays no attention to what is happening in the car. Humans in the car naturally modulate their conversation in deference to driving conditions. Humans on the phone, don't. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!