DUI checkpoint

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Indeed I drive superbly after three drinks consumed over a 1.5 hour dinner.

That's what they all say. I would love to know your standard. The facts are that your reaction will be slower. Thats just proven fact.

I'm done.

If he's 180+lbs, he is at .04 (or less) after 90 minutes & three drinks.


Thought he said he was like 225+? Also, wouldn't he have to have had the 3rd drink a full 90 minutes before the test to blow that using your formula? He didn't say he had 3 drinks then drove 45 minutes later. He said he had 3 drinks over 45 minutes while he had dinner then drove.

He might have had one or more of those 3 in the last few minutes. What does that do to the results?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Yes, I know there are formulas to determine when a person should be influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed. They are not 100% accurate though. Some people are knocked for a loop by just 1 beer or glass of wine while others could drain a keg and be fine. The effects don't always coincide with a person's size either. One small drink for me and I am gone for a couple hours and I am near 2X's your weight. Alcohol content in the drink matters too. Some beers/wine/hard liquors are stronger than others. Do you expect people to figure in the alcohol content as well when they are monitoring their intake and pacing themselves(

)?


http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/breathalyzer/record-bac.aspx

She was conscious at .50 BAC

10. BAC = .30-.50 = Symptoms are complete unconsciousness, depressed or absent reflexes, subnormal body temperature, incontinence, and impairment of circulation and respiration.

Death may occur at .37% or higher. BACs of .45% and higher are fatal to nearly all individuals.

Some guy in Germany was arrested for driving at something like .68!

That's a long time alcohol abuser to still be able to function. Most people would be out cold if not dead.

That's something like 13X the legal limit in Germany. (cars are .05 if there is no accident and .03 if there is. Bicyclists get a DWI at .16)

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Yes, I know there are formulas to determine when a person should be influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed. They are not 100% accurate though. Some people are knocked for a loop by just 1 beer or glass of wine while others could drain a keg and be fine. The effects don't always coincide with a person's size either. One small drink for me and I am gone for a couple hours and I am near 2X's your weight. Alcohol content in the drink matters too. Some beers/wine/hard liquors are stronger than others. Do you expect people to figure in the alcohol content as well when they are monitoring their intake and pacing themselves(

)?


http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/breathalyzer/record-bac.aspx

She was conscious at .50 BAC

10. BAC = .30-.50 = Symptoms are complete unconsciousness, depressed or absent reflexes, subnormal body temperature, incontinence, and impairment of circulation and respiration.

Death may occur at .37% or higher. BACs of .45% and higher are fatal to nearly all individuals.

Some guy in Germany was arrested for driving at something like .68!

That's a long time alcohol abuser to still be able to function. Most people would be out cold if not dead.

That's something like 13X the legal limit in Germany. (cars are .05 if there is no accident and .03 if there is. Bicyclists get a DWI at .16)



Reminds me of...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Indeed I drive superbly after three drinks consumed over a 1.5 hour dinner.

That's what they all say. I would love to know your standard. The facts are that your reaction will be slower. Thats just proven fact.

And facts are that teenagers have better reaction time than most adults. Who gets into more accidents?
I'd happily ride with Tom and his drinks vs a sober teen any day.

To each his own

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Indeed I drive superbly after three drinks consumed over a 1.5 hour dinner.

That's what they all say. I would love to know your standard. The facts are that your reaction will be slower. Thats just proven fact.

If he's 180+lbs, he is at .04 (or less) after 90 minutes & three drinks.

He has poor absorption these standard tables are what normal people experience:
http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Yes, I know there are formulas to determine when a person should be influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed. They are not 100% accurate though. Some people are knocked for a loop by just 1 beer or glass of wine while others could drain a keg and be fine. The effects don't always coincide with a person's size either. One small drink for me and I am gone for a couple hours and I am near 2X's your weight. Alcohol content in the drink matters too. Some beers/wine/hard liquors are stronger than others. Do you expect people to figure in the alcohol content as well when they are monitoring their intake and pacing themselves(

)?


http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/breathalyzer/record-bac.aspx

She was conscious at .50 BAC

10. BAC = .30-.50 = Symptoms are complete unconsciousness, depressed or absent reflexes, subnormal body temperature, incontinence, and impairment of circulation and respiration.

Death may occur at .37% or higher. BACs of .45% and higher are fatal to nearly all individuals.

Some guy in Germany was arrested for driving at something like .68!

That's a long time alcohol abuser to still be able to function. Most people would be out cold if not dead.

That's something like 13X the legal limit in Germany. (cars are .05 if there is no accident and .03 if there is. Bicyclists get a DWI at .16)



Reminds me of...

I couldn't find the German guy's story but I did find this"

A man in Wroclaw, Poland got in a car accident. His B.A.C. at the time was 1.480%. Freaking 1.480% of that man’s blood was alcohol. A coworker told the investigators that the man funneled pure grain alcohol he obtained from his place of work, a chemical plant. He survived that B.A.C. record, but died later from wounds sustained from the accident.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
So...are you then, in favor of a return to alcohol prohibition?


See, this is the kind of overstatement, overreaction, and just downright foolishness that ruins so many threads on this site. At NO point in this thread did I talk about not allowing people to drink. Since when does someone saying don't drink then drive mean don't drink period? I even specifically said I am not against people having a drink. It is my opinion that if they do they should not drive after( not until long after any possible effects have passed ).

I NEVER said return to prohibition. Good lord.

You have been had by the newest trick in the book. You know how we now have to end our statements with "but they're not all like that"...this is one of those cases...

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Again, this is all opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours. Your opinions actually match up with the law more so than mine do as well, but again, I think the laws have questionable reasons for being written as they are. I digress though...

I have seen people get in accidents however who "only had one drink" and alcohol was a determining factor. That excuse does not fly with me. It is also proven by scientific studies( please spare me the infamous BITOG request for proof and links - they exist and we all know it - I saw videos of the studies at the local PD )that for the vast majority of people who take a drink that they are far more impaired than they think they are. You may think you can have that drink or 2 and then drive but your reaction time and cognitive processes are impaired to some degree( again how much so varies from person to person and also impacted by alcohol content ).




You're correct, Tom's opinions do match up with the laws, though I disagree that they were written using questionable motives.


I wouldn't be so quick to use the examples of 1 drink caused the accident, if based solely on a police report. Sure, there may have been someone, such as yourself trying to drive after being knocked down by one drink, but there are also times where the police jump to conclusions too. They are human after all- they hear "alcohol" and that's it, you've got to be drunk. The case that sticks out in my mind the best was an article I read about a gal that had less than one glass of wine at a friend's party, who was hit by a policeman who ran a red light or made a right on red, or something to that affect... Right off the bat, he was on the offensive and when he found out about the few sips of wine, he arrested her on suspicion of DUI. It took months/years of legal action to clear the women, who had done nothing wrong and was not in any way impaired. If it were not for a security camera from a nearby business, she would have been sunk...

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Again, this is all opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours. Your opinions actually match up with the law more so than mine do as well, but again, I think the laws have questionable reasons for being written as they are. I digress though...

I have seen people get in accidents however who "only had one drink" and alcohol was a determining factor. That excuse does not fly with me. It is also proven by scientific studies( please spare me the infamous BITOG request for proof and links - they exist and we all know it - I saw videos of the studies at the local PD )that for the vast majority of people who take a drink that they are far more impaired than they think they are. You may think you can have that drink or 2 and then drive but your reaction time and cognitive processes are impaired to some degree( again how much so varies from person to person and also impacted by alcohol content ).




You're correct, Tom's opinions do match up with the laws, though I disagree that they were written using questionable motives.


I wouldn't be so quick to use the examples of 1 drink caused the accident, if based solely on a police report. Sure, there may have been someone, such as yourself trying to drive after being knocked down by one drink, but there are also times where the police jump to conclusions too. They are human after all- they hear "alcohol" and that's it, you've got to be drunk. The case that sticks out in my mind the best was an article I read about a gal that had less than one glass of wine at a friend's party, who was hit by a policeman who ran a red light or made a right on red, or something to that affect... Right off the bat, he was on the offensive and when he found out about the few sips of wine, he arrested her on suspicion of DUI. It took months/years of legal action to clear the women, who had done nothing wrong and was not in any way impaired. If it were not for a security camera from a nearby business, she would have been sunk...


I have actually been present at accidents due to DUI where only 1 or 2 drinks were consumed/claimed. Used to ride along with the PD all the time in High School as an Explorer. Of course if the Police hear alcohol they are going to assume the person was drinking and thus was impaired. COMMON SENSE! Fact is they see it all the time and so many people do drive impaired that it is a natural and reasonable assumption. Wow.

Your case has no application to what I am talking about. Yours is a specific case in which a Police Officer caused an accident and then tried to cover it up by saying the other driver was drinking and at fault. If anything though, it backs up my suggestion to not even have one drink and then go out and drive. If that woman hadn't had just a "few sips" of wine at the party, after the accident happened the crooked cop couldn't have tried to frame her claiming she was DUI. No booze no attempted frame job( for DUI anyway ).

I have to question however that she was arrested on "suspicion of DUI". Sounds sketchy to me. To arrest someone for DUI they have to fail a field sobriety test. You can't just arrest them with nothing to back it up. Did she blow into a breathalizer and record over the legal limit? Did she walk the line and fail? Was a blood test taken? Etc...? Maybe she said she only took a few sips of wine but it was a few glasses in reality and thus failed one or more sobriety checks in the field? Maybe she refused to be tested which can get you pinched in some states( such as mine ). I don't think we have all the facts. Foe this to go for as long as you claim there must have been some evidence of alcohol in her system that was used against her other than just a "suspicion"..

Again though, had she not had alcohol and then got behind the wheel she wouldn't have had to go through years of legal battles to clear her name.

I am bowing out of this thread now unless/until something new is posted. Last few pages are just a rehash of the same points over and over.

 

[The_Eric]

Here is the article I was talking about.
Sober woman charged with OWI

I can see how you'd think that your remarks are justified, which in a sense they are, but that doesn't excuse a policeman from doing his due diligence. Simply mentioning alcohol shouldn't make a citizen fear for their future.


The end point is that we can't legislate to the lowest common denominator. Doing that to ensure that we, as a society can't harm each other would mean that we would have to live our lives in a bubble with a feeding tube. The world is fraught with danger. Responsible people, drinking responsibly is not one of them. Making blanket statements about the effects of alcohol on people is uneducated at best.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I am bowing out of this thread now unless/until something new is posted. Last few pages are just a rehash of the same points over and over.


True. Plus, all the rehashing is just rationalizing the fishing techniques employed by police. I personally disapprove of my tax dollars being spent for this type of activity that provides little, if any, benefit and has tons of drawbacks. Spend some time paying attention to your local news for a week and log every report of a DUI-related accident. Then, think about how many of them could have been prevented by random stops.

Do keep in mind, as has been intimated previously, that if there were any traces of alcohol on the driver, or even in the car, the accident will be reported as "alcohol related" even if impairment of the driver had nothing to do with the incident.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Again, this is all opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours. Your opinions actually match up with the law more so than mine do as well, but again, I think the laws have questionable reasons for being written as they are. I digress though...

I have seen people get in accidents however who "only had one drink" and alcohol was a determining factor. That excuse does not fly with me. It is also proven by scientific studies( please spare me the infamous BITOG request for proof and links - they exist and we all know it - I saw videos of the studies at the local PD )that for the vast majority of people who take a drink that they are far more impaired than they think they are. You may think you can have that drink or 2 and then drive but your reaction time and cognitive processes are impaired to some degree( again how much so varies from person to person and also impacted by alcohol content ).




You're correct, Tom's opinions do match up with the laws, though I disagree that they were written using questionable motives.


I wouldn't be so quick to use the examples of 1 drink caused the accident, if based solely on a police report. Sure, there may have been someone, such as yourself trying to drive after being knocked down by one drink, but there are also times where the police jump to conclusions too. They are human after all- they hear "alcohol" and that's it, you've got to be drunk. The case that sticks out in my mind the best was an article I read about a gal that had less than one glass of wine at a friend's party, who was hit by a policeman who ran a red light or made a right on red, or something to that affect... Right off the bat, he was on the offensive and when he found out about the few sips of wine, he arrested her on suspicion of DUI. It took months/years of legal action to clear the women, who had done nothing wrong and was not in any way impaired. If it were not for a security camera from a nearby business, she would have been sunk...


I have actually been present at accidents due to DUI where only 1 or 2 drinks were consumed/claimed. Used to ride along with the PD all the time in High School as an Explorer. Of course if the Police hear alcohol they are going to assume the person was drinking and thus was impaired. COMMON SENSE! Fact is they see it all the time and so many people do drive impaired that it is a natural and reasonable assumption. Wow.

Your case has no application to what I am talking about. Yours is a specific case in which a Police Officer caused an accident and then tried to cover it up by saying the other driver was drinking and at fault. If anything though, it backs up my suggestion to not even have one drink and then go out and drive. If that woman hadn't had just a "few sips" of wine at the party, after the accident happened the crooked cop couldn't have tried to frame her claiming she was DUI. No booze no attempted frame job( for DUI anyway ).

I have to question however that she was arrested on "suspicion of DUI". Sounds sketchy to me. To arrest someone for DUI they have to fail a field sobriety test. You can't just arrest them with nothing to back it up. Did she blow into a breathalizer and record over the legal limit? Did she walk the line and fail? Was a blood test taken? Etc...? Maybe she said she only took a few sips of wine but it was a few glasses in reality and thus failed one or more sobriety checks in the field? Maybe she refused to be tested which can get you pinched in some states( such as mine ). I don't think we have all the facts. Foe this to go for as long as you claim there must have been some evidence of alcohol in her system that was used against her other than just a "suspicion"..

Again though, had she not had alcohol and then got behind the wheel she wouldn't have had to go through years of legal battles to clear her name.

I am bowing out of this thread now unless/until something new is posted. Last few pages are just a rehash of the same points over and over.


Well, "Suspucion of DUI/DWI" is pretty much what a checkpoint is, except that you are presumed guilty. It IS possible to harass citizens.

In your view, child support, outstanding warrants (including those for unpaid parking tickets or time payments) and rape (sorry,) murderer, thieves, stolen goods (my Honda!) checkpoints should be fine. Complete with detentions, "Terry stops," and... yeah. Right? Because we have "nothing to hide," right?

And I am not sold on privilege vs right, either. Too many have the privilege of an inability to drive. And too many states have hardship licenses.

You seem to have dug in... I will not be tread on. Police officers will RESPECT me... Thank you.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


Again, this is all opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours. Your opinions actually match up with the law more so than mine do as well, but again, I think the laws have questionable reasons for being written as they are. I digress though...

I have seen people get in accidents however who "only had one drink" and alcohol was a determining factor. That excuse does not fly with me. It is also proven by scientific studies( please spare me the infamous BITOG request for proof and links - they exist and we all know it - I saw videos of the studies at the local PD )that for the vast majority of people who take a drink that they are far more impaired than they think they are. You may think you can have that drink or 2 and then drive but your reaction time and cognitive processes are impaired to some degree( again how much so varies from person to person and also impacted by alcohol content ).




You're correct, Tom's opinions do match up with the laws, though I disagree that they were written using questionable motives.


I wouldn't be so quick to use the examples of 1 drink caused the accident, if based solely on a police report. Sure, there may have been someone, such as yourself trying to drive after being knocked down by one drink, but there are also times where the police jump to conclusions too. They are human after all- they hear "alcohol" and that's it, you've got to be drunk. The case that sticks out in my mind the best was an article I read about a gal that had less than one glass of wine at a friend's party, who was hit by a policeman who ran a red light or made a right on red, or something to that affect... Right off the bat, he was on the offensive and when he found out about the few sips of wine, he arrested her on suspicion of DUI. It took months/years of legal action to clear the women, who had done nothing wrong and was not in any way impaired. If it were not for a security camera from a nearby business, she would have been sunk...


I have actually been present at accidents due to DUI where only 1 or 2 drinks were consumed/claimed. Used to ride along with the PD all the time in High School as an Explorer. Of course if the Police hear alcohol they are going to assume the person was drinking and thus was impaired. COMMON SENSE! Fact is they see it all the time and so many people do drive impaired that it is a natural and reasonable assumption. Wow.

Your case has no application to what I am talking about. Yours is a specific case in which a Police Officer caused an accident and then tried to cover it up by saying the other driver was drinking and at fault. If anything though, it backs up my suggestion to not even have one drink and then go out and drive. If that woman hadn't had just a "few sips" of wine at the party, after the accident happened the crooked cop couldn't have tried to frame her claiming she was DUI. No booze no attempted frame job( for DUI anyway ).

I have to question however that she was arrested on "suspicion of DUI". Sounds sketchy to me. To arrest someone for DUI they have to fail a field sobriety test. You can't just arrest them with nothing to back it up. Did she blow into a breathalizer and record over the legal limit? Did she walk the line and fail? Was a blood test taken? Etc...? Maybe she said she only took a few sips of wine but it was a few glasses in reality and thus failed one or more sobriety checks in the field? Maybe she refused to be tested which can get you pinched in some states( such as mine ). I don't think we have all the facts. Foe this to go for as long as you claim there must have been some evidence of alcohol in her system that was used against her other than just a "suspicion"..

Again though, had she not had alcohol and then got behind the wheel she wouldn't have had to go through years of legal battles to clear her name.

I am bowing out of this thread now unless/until something new is posted. Last few pages are just a rehash of the same points over and over.


Well, "Suspucion of DUI/DWI" is pretty much what a checkpoint is, except that you are presumed guilty. It IS possible to harass citizens.

In your view, child support, outstanding warrants (including those for unpaid parking tickets or time payments) and rape (sorry,) murderer, thieves, stolen goods (my Honda!) checkpoints should be fine. Complete with detentions, "Terry stops," and... yeah. Right? Because we have "nothing to hide," right?

And I am not sold on privilege vs right, either. Too many have the privilege of an inability to drive. And too many states have hardship licenses.

You seem to have dug in... I will not be tread on. Police officers will RESPECT me... Thank you.


*Suspicion.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Here is the article I was talking about.
Sober woman charged with OWI

I can see how you'd think that your remarks are justified, which in a sense they are, but that doesn't excuse a policeman from doing his due diligence. Simply mentioning alcohol shouldn't make a citizen fear for their future.


The end point is that we can't legislate to the lowest common denominator. Doing that to ensure that we, as a society can't harm each other would mean that we would have to live our lives in a bubble with a feeding tube. The world is fraught with danger. Responsible people, drinking responsibly is not one of them. Making blanket statements about the effects of alcohol on people is uneducated at best.


I work in the industry. I have heard thousands of stories and I mean literally thousands of stories.

When blood tests started to be taken in lieu of breath tests for evidence, I started to see a lot more people with DUI convictions less than .08.

They have had Schedule I drugs or Schedule II drugs "beyond therapeutic levels" in their system.

One middle aged lady complained incessantly about getting a DWI at .06. When I processed her paperwork I found out that her blood test revealed muscle relaxers beyond therapeutic levels and significant levels of THC
So she popped a few carisoprodols, smoked a joint, drank a couple of glasses of white zinfadel, and took a drive.

Another client had a BAC of .00. She admitted to taking 4 bars of Xanax before driving.

Some of my clients get quite abusive with me about their medications.
It's prescribed! They can't give me a DUI for something I need to live!

 

[Lapham3]

Whether it's drinking or cell phones,texting, rowdy passengers,ect are all sources of distraction or degraded driving skills. We 'know' the vehicles and other traffic are huge kinetic energy 'weapons' that we use everyday, but since routine, little thought to the physics-nothing else comes close for most of us in our lives with the ease of mayhem and misery we can cause with them. Today, we kill fewer with safer vehicles and better road designs, but still many many injured that survive, but very often with some level of disabled condition for their remaining years. It makes most cops I've known angry to sad to see these things constantly. I've lived a good and full life and seen and experienced quite a bit, so if I tipped over tomorrow, no big deal. I've also seen first hand some of the ugly results of poor choices folks have made in this regard and wish for others to 'think about it' so more can avoid the pain-especially so this time of year when families gather, and miss those now gone.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Here is the article I was talking about.
Sober woman charged with OWI

I can see how you'd think that your remarks are justified, which in a sense they are, but that doesn't excuse a policeman from doing his due diligence. Simply mentioning alcohol shouldn't make a citizen fear for their future.


The end point is that we can't legislate to the lowest common denominator. Doing that to ensure that we, as a society can't harm each other would mean that we would have to live our lives in a bubble with a feeding tube. The world is fraught with danger. Responsible people, drinking responsibly is not one of them. Making blanket statements about the effects of alcohol on people is uneducated at best.


I work in the industry. I have heard thousands of stories and I mean literally thousands of stories.

When blood tests started to be taken in lieu of breath tests for evidence, I started to see a lot more people with DUI convictions less than .08.

They have had Schedule I drugs or Schedule II drugs "beyond therapeutic levels" in their system.

One middle aged lady complained incessantly about getting a DWI at .06. When I processed her paperwork I found out that her blood test revealed muscle relaxers beyond therapeutic levels and significant levels of THC
So she popped a few carisoprodols, smoked a joint, drank a couple of glasses of white zinfadel, and took a drive.

Another client had a BAC of .00. She admitted to taking 4 bars of Xanax before driving.

Some of my clients get quite abusive with me about their medications.
It's prescribed! They can't give me a DUI for something I need to live!

How does it work with your clients that have convictions for prescription drugs? Do the machines you install check for those too?

 

[97tbird]

I say there should be MORE DUI check points.
The more they catch, the safer the roads.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I say there should be MORE DUI check points.
The more they catch, the safer the roads.


And the more you give up. In my opinion, it's in no way, shape or form, a fair trade.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I say there should be MORE DUI check points.
The more they catch, the safer the roads.


And the more you give up. In my opinion, it's in no way, shape or form, a fair trade.


Give up what?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Here is the article I was talking about.
Sober woman charged with OWI

I can see how you'd think that your remarks are justified, which in a sense they are, but that doesn't excuse a policeman from doing his due diligence. Simply mentioning alcohol shouldn't make a citizen fear for their future.


The end point is that we can't legislate to the lowest common denominator. Doing that to ensure that we, as a society can't harm each other would mean that we would have to live our lives in a bubble with a feeding tube. The world is fraught with danger. Responsible people, drinking responsibly is not one of them. Making blanket statements about the effects of alcohol on people is uneducated at best.


I work in the industry. I have heard thousands of stories and I mean literally thousands of stories.

When blood tests started to be taken in lieu of breath tests for evidence, I started to see a lot more people with DUI convictions less than .08.

They have had Schedule I drugs or Schedule II drugs "beyond therapeutic levels" in their system.

One middle aged lady complained incessantly about getting a DWI at .06. When I processed her paperwork I found out that her blood test revealed muscle relaxers beyond therapeutic levels and significant levels of THC
So she popped a few carisoprodols, smoked a joint, drank a couple of glasses of white zinfadel, and took a drive.

Another client had a BAC of .00. She admitted to taking 4 bars of Xanax before driving.

Some of my clients get quite abusive with me about their medications.
It's prescribed! They can't give me a DUI for something I need to live!

How does it work with your clients that have convictions for prescription drugs? Do the machines you install check for those too?


They don't

It doesn't make sense to me either.

An OxyContin abuser is still going to be able to start and drive his/her vehicle.

The prescription drug DUI offenders have been fairly mouthy individuals. I've often wondered if they became argumentative with their judge and "earned" a little extra supervision.

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I say there should be MORE DUI check points.
The more they catch, the safer the roads.


And the more you give up. In my opinion, it's in no way, shape or form, a fair trade.


Give up what?


Your freedom to not be stopped and detained by the police without them having reasonable suspicion that you have broken any laws.