Yeah, any time that people have to make a judgement call, they’re going to get it wrong sometimes. The solution is minimizing the costs of those mistakes, not doubling down and insisting that they are never in error. Sadly the only real bright side is that in this case, nobody dies when police make this error.
1 Like
And especially for THC the level of metabolites in the blood does not correspond to intoxication.
If you smoke even once a day you’ll likely exceed most states DUI/OUI threshold (CO is 5 nanograms) and be sober as a judge.
In this case especially 0 tolerance has real, severe and unintended consequences.
4 Likes
Really?
“Do you understand what I’m saying?" shouted ■■■■■. “You can’t just go around killing people!”
“Why Not? You Do.” The golem lowered his arm.
“What?” snapped ■■■■■. “I do not! Who told you that?”
“I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People,” said the golem calmly.
“I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!”
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
5 Likes
I wouldn’t count on that.
In fact I’d bet on the opposite.
I’ll never know for sure, though, how many of those “killed while resisting arrest during a traffic stop” incidents were nothing of the sort.
One of many reasons to support 100% full-time video surveillance of all cop activities, I guess.
5 Likes
The entire point of this article is pointing out the opposite.
Fortunately, the test for phone impairment is easier:
If they walk a straight line, but send three texts and a selfie while doing so, they’re way over the limit.
3 Likes
[whynotboth.gif] /s
No! Those are the cops in Transylvania!
1 Like
did you intend to write ■■■■■?
2 Likes
In the US, they can ticket/arrest you for any kind of impairment. Field sobriety test doesn’t distinguish between cold medicine, alcohol or illegal drugs.
1 Like
Also, the fact that lab tests are used by the police to undenuably convict persons, but when they abdicate the person, all of a sudden the lab tests are in question. Utter BS.
2 Likes
I live in Utah and they passed the .05 law last year. I believe it goes into affect this spring. Restaurants, taverns, club owners and even some Democratic legislators fought against this, but to no avail. Do you know who introdices this law? The persons who sit on the DACB Board are all teetotaling LDS members. None of them ever drink, at least publicly. So, to any tourists coming here, never go out and have a drink in Utah. Sit quietly in your hotel room and watch TV or surf the internet. My question is, far and away the most careless, distracted and DANGEROUS drivers on the roads are those using their smart phones without any regard to their surroundings or the fact they are driving a one ton weapon down the road. If we can arrest someone who just blew a .051 and he is driving perfectly fine, let’s go after those who use their cell phones while driving, all the while blatantly disregarding the safety of others.
1 Like
I SOOO want to get a dashcam! Might have saved your buddy some trouble. No one believes the insanity I see even on a 5 minute drive.
2 Likes
No, absolutely not. I had a relative killed by a drunk driver, and the effects echo to this day on her siblings and parents.
The driver got off relatively lightly, despite being severely over the limit.
Personally, I think lowering the BAC limit like this is counter productive. Because when they picture a DUI, they don’t picture someone who consumes 6+ drinks, some marijuana, then does 80 on a residential street.
They picture the guy who has two drinks and waits slightly not long enough and gets snagged in a police checkpoint.
This leads to juries and judges leaning towards leniency across the board, since at the statue level many states lump these people in with the much more severely intoxivcated.
This leads to the public not being supportive of DAs and judges who don’t tolerate the truly drunk drivers. (DAs and judges are elected in many parts of America.)
In short, by changing the definition of “drunk driving”, we reduce it’s stigma. Something that I think is a terrible decision.
The limit in my area is around 0.7 or 0.8 - low enough that more than a beer or two will get you locked up. Going lower does nothing positive.
3 Likes
I absolutely intended to write ■■■■■.
3 Likes
Hmmm… I probably didn’t phrase myself correctly if it seems like I was suggesting it wasn’t. I just am working and didn’t have time to look things up but meant that there’s probably no reason to argue if people just look at the actual numbers.
That being said removing more drunk people from the road is definitely a benefit. However, generally the way we manage intoxication and addiction in this country is pathetically messed up. As a kid of someone who spent more on rehab and jail time than my medical costs and the costs of my college education combined (mainly because that cost was near zero because my parents just didn’t spend anything on that because priorities)… we tend to do things in a way that ensures that more people suffer needlessly since jail and fines are our way of dealing with most problems. Since most people are pretty selfish and addicts have an amazingly high amount of complete narcissists in their ranks, we don’t really address the fact that most of our punishments just hurt everyone around the person who caused the original problem. BUUUUT that’s literally a completely separate issue. Because we still have the problem of “yeah but it’s still killing people.”
1 Like
Oddly, you are much more likely to walk (stumble?) away from a serious accident if you are drunk. https://www.livescience.com/24979-alcohol-injury-outcome.html
So, from a survival standpoint, you should get as drunk as you can before getting into that Lyft / taxi / car driven by sober person.
1 Like
you only said you didn’t have the numbers. I did 
. Someone sorta seemed to be playing fast n moose, but not you!
2 Likes
I would argue that a good system would actually alleviate the need for compensation by treating you like a human every step of the way. I’m sorry for my error, but you did fail some tests, driving while tired can also be dangerous, would you like a ride back to your car… etc… The idea that every incorrect police action requires us to be paid is based upon the fact that nearly every police interaction generally violates our humanity.
2 Likes
Honestly I think part of the problem is that our punishments are amazingly disparate with some people seeing harsh punishments and others getting wrist slaps without it correlating very well to how intoxicated the person was or how much damage they caused.
6 Likes
