-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter LightningRod
- Start date
Golferdow01
East-Coast Living
It does very from person to person, but it's easier said than done to try and change a law that varies and opens the door to tons of expensive lawsuits. It's a simple fact that you drink, you drive, you lose. I'm in college at tOSU just like you and I've started to frequest the taxis now cause I know of enough times that I:strohs said:
a. Drove after drinking and should not have
b. Realize that others are doing the same thing as I have done above and would rather be in a boat of a taxi when they hit me
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
a specific point is required in order for law enforcement to properly enforce the law and for you and i to properly defend and protect ourselves from prosecution. in the end, a "sliding scale" will cost the tax payers more money, more people will be busted who shouldn't, and more people who should won't. a set limit is significantly better for all involved than something subjective.strohs said:
i don't understand why people are getting so upset over something that is blatant simple common sense. if you want to drink, have someone who isn't drive. if you drink and you get behind the wheel of a car you deserve what you get. how is this complex? there are no requirements for you to drink. you don't need it to live. its a "for enjoyment only" drink! furthermore, there are no requirments for you to drive. if you are unable to properly plan ahead to allow yourself the ability to legally drink... DON'T! show something resembling maturity and the ability to make proper decisions and don't drink when you don't have the ability to do so safely/legally.
Upvote
0
strohs
Go Bucks!
Obviously there is no reason from my end to continue this discussion, as everyone seems pretty set in their ways.
You will not convince me that one set point for humans of all shapes, sizes, and tolerance levels is the correct way to go about judging people as being intoxicated.
Drunk driving is stupid, and irresponsible, no one is going to deny that.
I am only arguing the fact that if you blow .081, you are immediately assumed to be incapable of driving and arrested. You should be given a field sobriety test, period.
You will not convince me that one set point for humans of all shapes, sizes, and tolerance levels is the correct way to go about judging people as being intoxicated.
Drunk driving is stupid, and irresponsible, no one is going to deny that.
I am only arguing the fact that if you blow .081, you are immediately assumed to be incapable of driving and arrested. You should be given a field sobriety test, period.
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
field sobriety test - an officer makes the decision on whether or not your drunk. you have no control over this situation and the outcome can greatly be impacted by things that have little to nothing to do with your having been drinking. officer is having a bad day, you made an offhanded comment they didn't like, etc..strohs said:
any measureable unbiased test - you have full control of what you put into your body. therefor, you have full control over your (in)ability to pass said test. if you have a set limit, regardless of whether it is to high or to low, you know what you can and can't do in order to remain legal. this gives you 100% control over the situation.
Upvote
0
kinch
Wash me
I am fine with the laws, if for no other reason then it may be hard, or impossible, to implement a better system-- and some system is obviously needed. I see no better way.
However, I did study, through expert medical witnesses, the effects and manners of intoxication in a case (though not about dui).
Essentially, the greatest deciding factor for intoxication is the acceleration of the level of alcohol in the bloodstream (according to both experts, who were on opposite sides of the litigation). Studies showed, for instance, that a person who had a two ounce shot of whiskey was more impaired than a person who had one one ounce shot (or 1/2 ounce, I forget) of whiskey an hour for four hours and then had the same two ounce shot.
Like I said, I am a fan of drinking laws (partly because I don't even own a car, maybe ? :) ), but blood alcohol level is not the best manner for determing drunkenness; for now, however, it is the only acceptable method. Hey-- it could just be zero (or 0.02 or whatever) and end the discussion the easy way. . .
However, I did study, through expert medical witnesses, the effects and manners of intoxication in a case (though not about dui).
Essentially, the greatest deciding factor for intoxication is the acceleration of the level of alcohol in the bloodstream (according to both experts, who were on opposite sides of the litigation). Studies showed, for instance, that a person who had a two ounce shot of whiskey was more impaired than a person who had one one ounce shot (or 1/2 ounce, I forget) of whiskey an hour for four hours and then had the same two ounce shot.
Like I said, I am a fan of drinking laws (partly because I don't even own a car, maybe ? :) ), but blood alcohol level is not the best manner for determing drunkenness; for now, however, it is the only acceptable method. Hey-- it could just be zero (or 0.02 or whatever) and end the discussion the easy way. . .
Upvote
0
craigblitz
Juice, Full of Juice!!
Bucklion - Didn't feel like I was being called out but thanks for the consideration anyway.
field sobriety test - an officer makes the decision on whether or not your drunk.
I disagree... they have you do a field sobriety test to help prove you are guilty not the other way around. Rarely if ever do field sobriety test involve in letting the person go. From experience I have done a fst and passed every test, was taken down anyway. Since if I did not blow I would have lossed my license for a year I blew... yep .010. Not even close to the limit. The officer said I was in violation of marked lanes which was a total lie. If the officer wanted to be a total prick he LEGALLY could have charged me with a DUI even blowing under the legal limit. Plus no matter what penalty you get in the state you were pulled over your home state can invoke sanctions against you becuase of the DLC. Just way out of control.
I guess keeping an open mind and reading everyones post I believe the following
1.) Play it safe don't drink and drive period to avoid all this stuff
2.) If DUI laws were truley about saftey then cell phone use etc would carry the same penalty
3.) Intoxiacation can not be governed by some macigal number .08 in this case
4.) Person involved in an accident while consuming alcohol should face harsh penalties, but most of the DUI in courts are for people on their way home and an officer trying to fill quota for the night. I have 2 OSHP friends and yes there are quotas.
5.) Refer back to rule 1
field sobriety test - an officer makes the decision on whether or not your drunk.
I disagree... they have you do a field sobriety test to help prove you are guilty not the other way around. Rarely if ever do field sobriety test involve in letting the person go. From experience I have done a fst and passed every test, was taken down anyway. Since if I did not blow I would have lossed my license for a year I blew... yep .010. Not even close to the limit. The officer said I was in violation of marked lanes which was a total lie. If the officer wanted to be a total prick he LEGALLY could have charged me with a DUI even blowing under the legal limit. Plus no matter what penalty you get in the state you were pulled over your home state can invoke sanctions against you becuase of the DLC. Just way out of control.
I guess keeping an open mind and reading everyones post I believe the following
1.) Play it safe don't drink and drive period to avoid all this stuff
2.) If DUI laws were truley about saftey then cell phone use etc would carry the same penalty
3.) Intoxiacation can not be governed by some macigal number .08 in this case
4.) Person involved in an accident while consuming alcohol should face harsh penalties, but most of the DUI in courts are for people on their way home and an officer trying to fill quota for the night. I have 2 OSHP friends and yes there are quotas.
5.) Refer back to rule 1
Upvote
0
gregorylee
I'd rather be napping!!
Misanthrope said:
I am not advocating drinking and driving, but the state did not decide "impaired" to be .08. It used to be .1 years ago, but the feds threatened to take away millions in highway $$ if it wasn't lowered to .08, the same with the drinking age from 18 to 19 and then to 21.
Upvote
0
Misanthrope
Banned
New York state has had such a law for a few years now, and I agree with it despite my libertarian nature. I don't care for the government telling me how to live, so long as my behavior only impacts me. But when you're exercising the privelege - not right - of operating an automobile you have an obligation to those around you to do it safely. The mistakes you make there can, and often do, affect others.Steve19 said:
None of this is news to me. I came of age when 19 was the legal drinking age, and I'm well aware of the feds dictating the recent change to the states by threatenting to withhold highway funds.gregorylee said:
The fact is, nothing you added here changes what I posted earlier. The law says .08 is "impaired", whether it was coerced by the feds or not.
Upvote
0
martinss01
blissfully stupid
my statements were made in response to strohs. the statment was made in response to his desire to do away with the measureable limit all together. not the way things are done now.craigblitz said:
yes, generally they have enough on you when they pull you over to bust you with something. but, you did pass your tests. no way on earth they could bust you for dui after passing. which was the point i was trying to make to strohs. the legal limit is just as much a protection for you as it is a way to bust you. in your case had there been no legal limit tests or laws, you likely would have been busted for dui.
1. completely agree
2. not "as" harsh, but it clearly should not be legal.
3. intoxication no, but i do support there being a legal limit. not necissarily the number .081. but yeah.
4. on their way home from a bar yes
. some have quotas and some don't.
Upvote
0
lvbuckeye
Silver Surfer
i think that i'll steer clear of the larger constitutionality debate, and just weigh in on what constitutes 'impaired.'
as you all may know, i live in Vegas, and work in the Service Industry. it is required that all persons in Las Vegas who serve alcohol, be it in a gas station, liquor store, bar, restaurant, or casino, periodically take alcohol classes...
the thing that you learn in these classes is that there are a LOT more factors which determine a person's impairment than BAC. take your garden variety functioning alcoholic: every day he drinks a bottle of Jack. say there are 25 ounces in the bottle. NOW, it generally takes ~1 hour per ounce of 80 proof liquor to metabolize the alcohol. therefore, the man wakes up the next morning over the limit. then, he goes about his day, and hits the bottle again after work. due to the fact that it will take him 25 hours to metabolize the 25 ounces of Jack, by the time he hits the bottle the next day, he is STILL over the limit. the next day, he's even further over the limit. and so on. yet, he is functioning without any noticeable impairment, due to the fact that he is ALWAYS over the limit. this person is rarely the one who gets the DUI. the DUI's generally go to people who 1) don't generally drink often or in large quantities, and 2) don't have any idea what their limit is. i can state honestly that i know for a fact that i've driven when i'm legally over the limit- for the simple fact that i just drank three 20 OZ draft Fat Tires. but i'm not impaired- yet. partly because i drink a few beers after work pretty often, but more so due to the fact that my body hasn't had the chance to metabolize the alcohol yet. maybe i will be impaired in an hour or so, but not right now. now, when i sit at the bar for five hours, and have a few shots of Patron along with my Fat Tires, then i know that i need to either call a cab, or start walking. i have no problem leaving my car at the bar and picking it up in the morning...
but the amount and the regularity that one drinks are not the only factors. others include sex (women are more greatly affected by alcohol), body type, metabolic rate, and the percentage of body fat that one has. as well as food. protein stays in the stomach longer than carbs, thus, any alcohol that goes into the stomach with the protein will be absorbed at a much slower rate than if the person ate a bunch of bread. this is a common misunderstanding: Bread makes you get drunk FASTER. carbs don't stay in the stomach long. they just get dumped straight into the intestines, and the alcohol gets dumped in with the carbs... the intestine is where the largest portion of alcohol is metabolized.
but it's not just the food that determines the metabolic rate of alcohol absorbtion. mostly it has to do with the individual's matabolism: i know that i can sit with my brother, and we can each drink 6 Budweisers, yet he will ALWAYS be more banged up than me, because his metabolism is a lot faster than mine. so, i may end up drinking a couple more beers than him, but i'm the one that has to drive.
it's just the way that it is. impairment should be determined on a per person basis, and not by some number that the Gov't decides. shoot, from a strictly technical standpoint, i'm legally over after ONE Fat Tire, but i sure as shit ain't drunk... now after four or five, i'm definitely impaired... yet i know that i've passed the Field Sobriety Check when i was 'legally impaired.' because for me, over the limit is not the same as the nest guy...
the point is that it's all subjective...
and now for some interesting trivia: it was recently determined that at any given time of day, 26% of all drivers in Las Vegas are over the limit... on big Party Weekends such as New Years, or Labor Day, or St Patrick's Day, that percentage spikes to over 50%... just some food for thought...
and here's a fun little story: i was driving back from The Orleans last night around 4 AM, and a car drove past me on I-215 THE WRONG WAY. this guy was clocking 65 MPH, travelling westbound in the EASTBOUND fast lane. on a 6 lane, divided Interstate Highway... i got the fuck off the highway with a quickness and called 911... as soon as i said, "i'm eastbound on the 215," she said, "the guy going the wrong way, i know." so i hung up... i don't know what happened after that, but one thing is certain: THAT guy was impaired...
as you all may know, i live in Vegas, and work in the Service Industry. it is required that all persons in Las Vegas who serve alcohol, be it in a gas station, liquor store, bar, restaurant, or casino, periodically take alcohol classes...
the thing that you learn in these classes is that there are a LOT more factors which determine a person's impairment than BAC. take your garden variety functioning alcoholic: every day he drinks a bottle of Jack. say there are 25 ounces in the bottle. NOW, it generally takes ~1 hour per ounce of 80 proof liquor to metabolize the alcohol. therefore, the man wakes up the next morning over the limit. then, he goes about his day, and hits the bottle again after work. due to the fact that it will take him 25 hours to metabolize the 25 ounces of Jack, by the time he hits the bottle the next day, he is STILL over the limit. the next day, he's even further over the limit. and so on. yet, he is functioning without any noticeable impairment, due to the fact that he is ALWAYS over the limit. this person is rarely the one who gets the DUI. the DUI's generally go to people who 1) don't generally drink often or in large quantities, and 2) don't have any idea what their limit is. i can state honestly that i know for a fact that i've driven when i'm legally over the limit- for the simple fact that i just drank three 20 OZ draft Fat Tires. but i'm not impaired- yet. partly because i drink a few beers after work pretty often, but more so due to the fact that my body hasn't had the chance to metabolize the alcohol yet. maybe i will be impaired in an hour or so, but not right now. now, when i sit at the bar for five hours, and have a few shots of Patron along with my Fat Tires, then i know that i need to either call a cab, or start walking. i have no problem leaving my car at the bar and picking it up in the morning...
but the amount and the regularity that one drinks are not the only factors. others include sex (women are more greatly affected by alcohol), body type, metabolic rate, and the percentage of body fat that one has. as well as food. protein stays in the stomach longer than carbs, thus, any alcohol that goes into the stomach with the protein will be absorbed at a much slower rate than if the person ate a bunch of bread. this is a common misunderstanding: Bread makes you get drunk FASTER. carbs don't stay in the stomach long. they just get dumped straight into the intestines, and the alcohol gets dumped in with the carbs... the intestine is where the largest portion of alcohol is metabolized.
but it's not just the food that determines the metabolic rate of alcohol absorbtion. mostly it has to do with the individual's matabolism: i know that i can sit with my brother, and we can each drink 6 Budweisers, yet he will ALWAYS be more banged up than me, because his metabolism is a lot faster than mine. so, i may end up drinking a couple more beers than him, but i'm the one that has to drive.
it's just the way that it is. impairment should be determined on a per person basis, and not by some number that the Gov't decides. shoot, from a strictly technical standpoint, i'm legally over after ONE Fat Tire, but i sure as shit ain't drunk... now after four or five, i'm definitely impaired... yet i know that i've passed the Field Sobriety Check when i was 'legally impaired.' because for me, over the limit is not the same as the nest guy...
the point is that it's all subjective...
and now for some interesting trivia: it was recently determined that at any given time of day, 26% of all drivers in Las Vegas are over the limit... on big Party Weekends such as New Years, or Labor Day, or St Patrick's Day, that percentage spikes to over 50%... just some food for thought...
and here's a fun little story: i was driving back from The Orleans last night around 4 AM, and a car drove past me on I-215 THE WRONG WAY. this guy was clocking 65 MPH, travelling westbound in the EASTBOUND fast lane. on a 6 lane, divided Interstate Highway... i got the fuck off the highway with a quickness and called 911... as soon as i said, "i'm eastbound on the 215," she said, "the guy going the wrong way, i know." so i hung up... i don't know what happened after that, but one thing is certain: THAT guy was impaired...
Upvote
0
Its a touchy subject to me... I understand that people want to err on the side of caution...
The problem is that people are morons... as to speeding... hell if everyone were responsible and knew how to drive, we wouldn't need speed limits... but they aren't.... so we do.
Anyway... I think legally there needs to be a cut off... and I also think that some latitude needs to rest in the hands of the police on this matter... I mean.. do they have to let someone go if they blow a .07 but look hammered... and I can personally tell you that if you blow a .12 but pass the sobriety test... and you're close to home... they will let you go.
I just want to sort of agree with some people that .08 is too low... it was .1 for a long time... and While I'm sure you could find some stats leading to a decrease in DUI fatalities in states that moved to .08... the fact remains that most people involved in accidents have a much higher BAC than even .1 (Of course there are more arrests now... you've made the 3 beers at the ball game guy a criminal)...
Anyway... lets face it... certain people would like to return to prohibition... and I am all about safe roads... but... lets be reasonable.... (btw.. I don't have a huge problem with .08... I'd prefer .1... but.. they'll try to lower it again... )
As to the original article.. if that chick was .21... throw her ass in jail.
The problem is that people are morons... as to speeding... hell if everyone were responsible and knew how to drive, we wouldn't need speed limits... but they aren't.... so we do.
Anyway... I think legally there needs to be a cut off... and I also think that some latitude needs to rest in the hands of the police on this matter... I mean.. do they have to let someone go if they blow a .07 but look hammered... and I can personally tell you that if you blow a .12 but pass the sobriety test... and you're close to home... they will let you go.
I just want to sort of agree with some people that .08 is too low... it was .1 for a long time... and While I'm sure you could find some stats leading to a decrease in DUI fatalities in states that moved to .08... the fact remains that most people involved in accidents have a much higher BAC than even .1 (Of course there are more arrests now... you've made the 3 beers at the ball game guy a criminal)...
Anyway... lets face it... certain people would like to return to prohibition... and I am all about safe roads... but... lets be reasonable.... (btw.. I don't have a huge problem with .08... I'd prefer .1... but.. they'll try to lower it again... )
As to the original article.. if that chick was .21... throw her ass in jail.
Upvote
0
Golferdow01
East-Coast Living
I agree that .1 is a more reasonable level for driving imparedness, even if the statistics point to .08. I know a coupld people who blew .8 or .9 and only had 2-3 drinks in 2 hours and I wouldn't have known they even drank from the way they talked/acted. We definitely need the law but manytimes .08 is a little low I think
Upvote
0
strohs
Go Bucks!
I did not mean to imply I thought the limit number should be done away with,martinss01 said:
what I meant was it should be more flexible.
Meaning, if you blow .08 but pass the field test with flying colors, you should be let go.
If you blow a .06 but cant stand up, you should be arrested. Thats what I meant.
Upvote
0
craigblitz
Juice, Full of Juice!!
and I can personally tell you that if you blow a .12 but pass the sobriety test... and you're close to home... they will let you go.
That is not always the case, but I think you are right there are some officers who user discerment, but that is far from the normal anymore.
That is not always the case, but I think you are right there are some officers who user discerment, but that is far from the normal anymore.
Upvote
0