The Glade 4.0

I'm a combination of both factions participating in this discussion. I believe that the laws surrounding DUI are horrible. There needs to be far more "tiers of intoxication" for me to take any restriction seriously. 0.08 is a bit to harsh in my estimation, but even if we are to use that as a starting point, there needs top be degrees of punishment which coincide with degrees of drunkenness. .08 is different than .09 is different that .10 and so on. Fatalities and various morbidities caused by and degree of consumption should all be treatd the same, however. Nor do I think anything under .14 should be a felony.

That said, I can't think of a single good reason to drive under the influence.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Honestly, I came up with that scenario because I didn't want to resort to the much more obvious examples of people who are a lot more to blame. This hypothetical person will 100% believe that he's sober and not hurting anyone even though he's wrong, unlike most DUI people who are just hoping not to get caught.

But seriously, have you ever BEEN to college? For the vast majority of people there, the only ones that have never driven under the influence are the ones that don't have ready access to a motor vehicle. If you permanently revoke licenses for DUI, the only reason anyone at all would still have a license is because they were lucky enough not to get caught.

I can't even claim to be clean of this myself, I don't think I've ever driven under the influence, I've never had more than two drinks before driving, but I'm 150 lbs, 6'1", so it's definitely possible. By your own admission you've also done this so you might also have been guilty at some point. I really think you guys need to look back at your lives. Can you really claim to be sure you've never driven under the influence? I don't think many people can.

Are you seriously using the idiocy that goes on at college as an argument? Really?

That sort of brings up why the **** you need a car at college. If college kids want to go get blasted, fine. Most of them don't need cars anyhow, and really shouldn't have them. I didn't need a car my 4 1/2 years of college and really no one I knew needed one that badly either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There already are tiers, just not very many of them. For example in Ohio high tier starts at 0.17%. That doesn't make it a felony, but it does up the penalties. Felony is usually tied to number of offenses or actually causing harm to another.

I can agree with your ideas that 0.08 is too low and having more tiers, although I don't think I'd go every 0.01% interval. Especially at higher levels; once you get above about 0.25% or so.. it doesn't make much more difference.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have never driven under the influence.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Bullshit.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why not? That's the reality of the situation. You used the, "well the people who have their licenses suspended will just drive anyway" argument, that doesn't make it any more right, it's just how it is.

Call BS if you want. I assure you, I have not.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I can't believe you seriously said this. I was pointing out the ineffectiveness of license suspensions at controlling DUIs. You're taking issue with the idea of enforcement of BAC based on the fact that a lot of college kids might get caught doing it.

I'm not even arguing against license suspensions, just pointing out that they don't control drunk driving. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we shouldn't suspend people's licenses at all because.. well we might end up suspending a lot of them!"

That may be even more hilarious than the "immigration law is racist because all the people breaking it are Hispanic!" argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're absolutely certain? You can be "under the influence" with very little alcohol in your system. You might be better served to say "I have never driven when I suspected I was under the influence."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes. I am absolutely certain. If I have had more than one drink (beer, mixed drink, etc)with dinner. I don't drive. And yeah, I'm 6'1 255#. One beer in an hour and a half with food isn't going to do much of anything to me. But I only do that when I'm going to eat, and if I'm going to be at the restaurant for long enough to metabolize the alcohol. (1-2 hours)

If I'm driving, I don't drink. Its that easy. Even when I was younger, in my... err... younger days. I didn't drink at parties if I had to drive home. If I wasn't crashing at my friend's house or I didn't have a DD. I didn't drink.

Is it honestly that hard to believe?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Yes. I don't believe you. That isn't to say you are lying, I simply think your memory is selective or that you drank your memories hazy before driving.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I have never driven anywhere near 0.08. You need to drink a fair bit to hit that percentage, even at my weight. I don't think someone could hit .08 and not realize they've had too much. Three margaritas in 2 hours puts me at 0.06, and that would do me for an entire night, and I wouldn't even think of driving afterwards.

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't believe in DUI laws.

However, given that they exist, the penalties should be harsher to act as any real deterrent.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I had a DUI when I was 21. Only took the once to make me understand I wasn't Superman. Still drank for quite awhile, just didn't drive afterward. Finally I got dry, haven't been drunk in about 20 years, have been dry almost all that time. Today I never even want more than one and frankly, I don't always finish that one.

I got off easy, it cost me about a grand for everything back in 1976. Seemed like a lot back then, its nothing compared to what people go through today. Your first DUI in California - all associated costs, not just the fine - $10-$15K. Double it for your second one. Of course, that is if you want your license back after the second one. That is just for driving drunk, cause damage or hurt someone, costs and penalties go way up.

I think we're on the right track, we just need to build special DUI prisons, we have no room for them in our regular jails.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Back to this thread a little late and pages have been added, but in SC, you can refuse to any or all of the sobriety tests, unless there has been an accident, in which case it appears a blood test is mandatory. Why its mandatory for an accident and not all the time, I couldn't tell you, and what changes to allow self incrimination in one case versus the other, I don't know either. But, for a "simple" stop, you can refuse all 3 tests. You do lose your license immediately, but you can apply for a provisional license that is essentially enough to allow you to drive to work, theoretically. However, you don't need a license to drive a moped under a certain HP on the roads either. Up until the downturn, just about anyone you saw that was above college student age around here on a moped was a DUI. Now its harder to tell since so many seem to have traded in vehicles for cheaper transport.

Bolded is a myth and doesn't have any measurable impact on your BAC. Food doesn't absorb alcohol, so anything you drink is going to find its way into the bloodstream. It might get delayed a little, but not enough to matter.

I can, with 100% certainty, say that I haven't. I don't drink (at all, not even a drop) unless I have a DD, easy access to a cab, or a couch to crash on set up in advance.

Of course, when I was under 22 or so I didn't drink, so I didn't have the high school/college stupidity DUIs that so many have...

I don't think I've ever driven while over the legal limit either, though I can't be certain. I've just never been much of a drinker, and anytime I've had more than 1 drink, I've always waited about an hour per drink before driving. That said, I have driven on little or no sleep, and I've driven while talking on my cell phone, reading a text, futzing with the GPS, etc., all of which have been shown to impair a person's situational awareness and/or reaction time just as much as being mildly drunk. I'm willing to bet the same is true of almost everyone who is diligent about not drunk driving and stridently unforgiving of those who have/do. That's why I differentiate between slightly-over-the-limit drunk drivers and what-the-f*ck-were-they-thinking drunk drivers; the former aren't really any worse than people who drive tired and thus should be treated leniently, while the latter are assh*holes who should have the hammer dropped on them on the first offense.

I can see some sense in this. It would be interesting to see a comparison between accidents and BAC levels. I suspect that most of the really bad accidents happen with much higher BAC levels, but that's just my gut feeling.

I have noticed that I am more impaired when I drink on an empty stomach. This may be a metabolism issue, (absorbed quicker and/or lightheaded anyway from being hungry). Just an observation.

Has more to do with lower blood sugar from lack of eating, plus some mental considerations from believing that lack of food and drinking gets your more drunk.

presumably with less in your stomach/gi tract anything going in your mouth will get absorbed more quickly

I doubt that most of the bad accidents happen at higher BAC levels simply because driving with a lower, but still too high, BAC is vastly more common.

Of the people I've arrested for drunk driving, off the top of my head, I would guess that 50% where between 1x and 2x the legal limit, and most of the rest were under 3x the legal limit. Probably one in every ten exceeds that. Above 0.3%.. I can't say for sure but certainly less than a dozen arrests, ever.

People with really high BAC levels get less and less likely to drive too, because more of them recognize they've had too much, as opposed to feeling "ok", more of them will have their keys taken, or simply be physically unable to strt driving.

You're correct though, in the sense that the ones that DO get on the road are far more likely to cause an accident. Remember that 7th time offender I mentioned? That guy had almost caused an accident to cause someone to call the station, and almost caused another one right in front of me when I located him and was getting ready to pull him over. His BAC was 0.22%.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You don't get more drunk on an empty stomach. The amount of alcohol you take in is the same. You do get drunk more slowly, and that may make it feel like you're more drunk because the alcohol is hitting you more abruptly.

I suppose it's possible that having a full stomach might shave just a tad off the peak BAC you achieve if you drink a whole bunch at once and then stop after eating since your body will have time to start metabolising the intial portion in your bloodstream before it's all absorbed but this effect would almost certainly be very small if it existed at all. Maybe Squirrel Girl can tell us if that is true.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."