User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:37:12 AM EDT
[#1]
.05 is illegal in NY
at least no one got arrested for showing Deadpool in NY |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:40:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At that point I don't know if the people were driving drunk or just morons that happened to be drinking before doing dumb stuff. Not that it matters since either one will kill you with a car. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see no reason to lower it to that level. A person can still be convicted of DUI at a .05 if you can demonstrate the person could not properly operate a vehicle. I have made several such cases. At that point I don't know if the people were driving drunk or just morons that happened to be drinking before doing dumb stuff. Not that it matters since either one will kill you with a car. IME, it is mostly younger females with low body fat. Most of which I saw in the training environment of SFST school near a college campus. Does not include those who add pills, weed etc to the mix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:42:19 AM EDT
[#3]
It's a money thing. As the volume of DUIs go down the state and local governments need to replace the lost revenue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:42:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They really need to move it down to 0,01 That way they can wring maximum media points out of every arrest - "He blew a 0.1 THAT'S 10 TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!" The old threshold of 0.1 had plenty of merit. 0.08 is just some MADD bullshit. When someone gets popped at 0.14 the media screams about them being "nearly twice the legal limit" Yet every time I see a crash, the reported BAC is not 0.09 - it is 0.18 or higher. Drunks are gonna get drunk. They get REAL drunk. Sadly, they will still drive no matter what, and the courts will keep putting them back on the street. Driving after your 3rd DUI conviction should be impossible. The only thing a limit that low (0.05) will do is put a bunch of casual drinkers (and some mouthwash users) in jail. The drunks will still be o the road. I can tell you, as a former LEO who was trained in DWI recognition and in another school as a drinker, that .08% is too intoxicated to safely operate a motor vehicle. Texas A&M has conducted MANY studies on this as well. I fully support the .08% presumed level of intoxication. When LEOs are trained they have other LEOs at the school who are assigned to drink so that the students can practice the Field Sobriety tests. The instructors have the drinkers drink to different levels of BAC. They have those below and above the .08%. Percentages are determined and verified by an Intoxilizer. Drinkers are not told their BAC prior to being tested by the students, and are instructed to perform the tests as best possible. I learned two important things at my schools, properly completed FSTs are extremely accurate, and .08% is definitely intoxicated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:43:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does one volunteer for this  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think most people would even show signs of impairment at that level. HGN is visible at .08, and some don't have a ton of trouble with other tests if they are on the edge. .05? I could see it happen if they were on the way down and it was close to 2 hours before the evidentiary test is administered and they drop down to .05. My eyes start to bounce in the .07 to .08 range. <--- volunteer drinker for an academy SFST class. How does one volunteer for this Contact your local police academies. iirc you had to have someone who could drive you to and from the training event, be 21+ etc. They don't want you to get slobber drunk. They administer the alcohol by volume according to your weight and a certain amount of time. I just happened to be attending a class at the academy when they were doing their SFST training. iirc I had three different groups administer the SFST's on me and I got hooked all three times. So the options were sit in a hotel room or have some fun playing the drunk driver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:44:42 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They really need to move it down to 0,01 That way they can wring maximum media points out of every arrest - "He blew a 0.1 THAT'S 10 TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!" The old threshold of 0.1 had plenty of merit. 0.08 is just some MADD bullshit. When someone gets popped at 0.14 the media screams about them being "nearly twice the legal limit" Yet every time I see a crash, the reported BAC is not 0.09 - it is 0.18 or higher. Drunks are gonna get drunk. They get REAL drunk. Sadly, they will still drive no matter what, and the courts will keep putting them back on the street. Driving after your 3rd DUI conviction should be impossible. The only thing a limit that low (0.05) will do is put a bunch of casual drinkers (and some mouthwash users) in jail. The drunks will still be o the road. I have never encountered a drunk person at the .08 level I would want operating a vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:46:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell you, as a former LEO who was trained in DWI recognition and in another school as a drinker, that .08% is too intoxicated to safely operate a motor vehicle. Texas A&M has conducted MANY studies on this as well. I fully support the .08% presumed level of intoxication. When LEOs are trained they have other LEOs at the school who are assigned to drink so that the students can practice the Field Sobriety tests. The instructors have the drinkers drink to different levels of BAC. They have those below and above the .08%. Percentages are determined and verified by an Intoxilizer. Drinkers are not told their BAC prior to being tested by the students, and are instructed to perform the tests as best possible. I learned two important things at my schools, properly completed FSTs are extremely accurate, and .08% is definitely intoxicated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:46:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd bet that your average collegiate level athlete can drive better with a .08 BAL than a sober 70 year old curmudgeon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd bet that your average collegiate level athlete can drive better with a .08 BAL than a sober 70 year old curmudgeon. I think they should transition to a reaction timing filed test than a BAL test. In fact, the reaction timing test should be part of the driver's license test. If your reaction timing sucks when sober...you probably shouldn't drive.
So instead of DUI...maybe we issue RTS (reaction time sucks) tickets instead. Alcohol first affects your decision making, even before there are any physical symptoms. It matters not if you are an athlete or old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:46:46 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's always been a huge fund raiser for municipalities. Just another way to bleed the public of funds. Why not increase the pool of potential targets? Statists gonna Statist lol..... Nope. Not even close |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:47:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell you, as a former LEO who was trained in DWI recognition and in another school as a drinker, that .08% is too intoxicated to safely operate a motor vehicle. Texas A&M has conducted MANY studies on this as well. I fully support the .08% presumed level of intoxication. When LEOs are trained they have other LEOs at the school who are assigned to drink so that the students can practice the Field Sobriety tests. The instructors have the drinkers drink to different levels of BAC. They have those below and above the .08%. Percentages are determined and verified by an Intoxilizer. Drinkers are not told their BAC prior to being tested by the students, and are instructed to perform the tests as best possible. I learned two important things at my schools, properly completed FSTs are extremely accurate, and .08% is definitely intoxicated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They really need to move it down to 0,01 That way they can wring maximum media points out of every arrest - "He blew a 0.1 THAT'S 10 TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!" The old threshold of 0.1 had plenty of merit. 0.08 is just some MADD bullshit. When someone gets popped at 0.14 the media screams about them being "nearly twice the legal limit" Yet every time I see a crash, the reported BAC is not 0.09 - it is 0.18 or higher. Drunks are gonna get drunk. They get REAL drunk. Sadly, they will still drive no matter what, and the courts will keep putting them back on the street. Driving after your 3rd DUI conviction should be impossible. The only thing a limit that low (0.05) will do is put a bunch of casual drinkers (and some mouthwash users) in jail. The drunks will still be o the road. I can tell you, as a former LEO who was trained in DWI recognition and in another school as a drinker, that .08% is too intoxicated to safely operate a motor vehicle. Texas A&M has conducted MANY studies on this as well. I fully support the .08% presumed level of intoxication. When LEOs are trained they have other LEOs at the school who are assigned to drink so that the students can practice the Field Sobriety tests. The instructors have the drinkers drink to different levels of BAC. They have those below and above the .08%. Percentages are determined and verified by an Intoxilizer. Drinkers are not told their BAC prior to being tested by the students, and are instructed to perform the tests as best possible. I learned two important things at my schools, properly completed FSTs are extremely accurate, and .08% is definitely intoxicated. Agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:47:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Why bother? Does one really have to drink when driving and going out? One cannot go out and determine that if they have to drive, they can survive without consuming alcohol? Are people really that dependent on alcohol?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:50:19 AM EDT
[#12]
0.05 is basically zero tolerance. They need to quit pussy footing around and just say if you blow over 0.0 you get a DUI.
I mean what's next....they going to drop it to 0.02? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:51:29 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:56:19 AM EDT
[#14]
U Turn Around Here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:56:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why bother? Does one really have to drink when driving and going out? One cannot go out and determine that if they have to drive, they can survive without consuming alcohol? Are people really that dependent on alcohol? Yes they are. I have at least one close call EVERYDAY with some jackhole fucking with his phone. I'd rather be on the road at closing time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:57:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol..... Nope. Not even close Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's always been a huge fund raiser for municipalities. Just another way to bleed the public of funds. Why not increase the pool of potential targets? Statists gonna Statist lol..... Nope. Not even close What's not even close? Please argue and tell me that DUI laws are about lives. Is that why the founder of MADD stepped down after realizing it's all about money now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:06:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol..... Nope. Not even close BS. a 1st time run of the mill DUI in TX will easily cost you $10k in fines and fees, not counting lawyers |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:06:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Why stop there? Why not just make alcohol illegal in Utah? It worked out so well when it was tried on the national level...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:08:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Go ahead and lower it to 0.01% - zero tolerance. Then a DUI will lose its meaning, and no one will give a fuck anymore. Oh, you got a DUI? Haha, those are such a joke. ZFG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:10:55 AM EDT
[#20]
That's just the per se limit for license revocation. Driving while impaired is the standard as it has always been.
The real question is "At what point will people stop drinking and driving?" You would think those who do it would have learned by now. We have these laws to cater to the lowest common denominator of citizen who habitually abuses alcohol then determines they are good to go while under the influence of alcohol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:13:05 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh you know, because, Safety. It's for the children. Thank God we have our heroes in blue to ruin the lives of everyday people for having a beer with lunch 
Oh but states rights. This certainly isn't about money or abusive over reach by the government or their JBT's. Nope. It's for the good of the common man. At least it's up in that LDS hovel of a state, and not anywhere that matters. Have 9 wives? no biggie. Some underage? Oh that's no biggie, our good book says its ok. You had a beer? A BEER!? Lock him up officers. Make sure you bankrupt him too. I'm not LDS. But, why do you feel the need to bring religion into it? Polygamy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:15:39 AM EDT
[#22]
Impairment is not just a number.
Don't drink and drive, won't get arrested for drinking and driving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:18:47 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh you know, because, Safety. It's for the children. Thank God we have our heroes in blue to ruin the lives of everyday people for having a beer with lunch
Oh but states rights. This certainly isn't about money or abusive over reach by the government or their JBT's. Nope. It's for the good of the common man. At least it's up in that LDS hovel of a state, and not anywhere that matters. Have 9 wives? no biggie. Some underage? Oh that's no biggie, our good book says its ok. You had a beer? A BEER!? Lock him up officers. Make sure you bankrupt him too. Polygamy is illegal in Utah. It is also not tolerated in the LDS church and those who try it are excommunicated. No underage wives either. The law is about idiots who routinely exercise poor judgment when it comes to their booze and cars. You are correct, it isn't about money or government overreach. It is about protecting the motoring public from assholes who drink and drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:21:46 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Polygamy is illegal in Utah. It is also not tolerated in the LDS church and those who try it are excommunicated. No underage wives either. The law is about idiots who routinely exercise poor judgment when it comes to their booze and cars. You are correct, it isn't about money or government overreach. It is about protecting the motoring public from assholes who drink and drive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh you know, because, Safety. It's for the children. Thank God we have our heroes in blue to ruin the lives of everyday people for having a beer with lunch
Oh but states rights. This certainly isn't about money or abusive over reach by the government or their JBT's. Nope. It's for the good of the common man. At least it's up in that LDS hovel of a state, and not anywhere that matters. Have 9 wives? no biggie. Some underage? Oh that's no biggie, our good book says its ok. You had a beer? A BEER!? Lock him up officers. Make sure you bankrupt him too. Polygamy is illegal in Utah. It is also not tolerated in the LDS church and those who try it are excommunicated. No underage wives either. The law is about idiots who routinely exercise poor judgment when it comes to their booze and cars. You are correct, it isn't about money or government overreach. It is about protecting the motoring public from assholes who drink and drive. So if the standard is already impairment and people are still driving drunk with .08, how does moving the presumptive threshold to .05 make anything more safe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:29:34 AM EDT
[#25]
It's going to get really interesting when we have self driving cars. Yeah, I'm sure they are still going to say that there must be a sober operator in the vehicle (in case of emergencies) despite the fact that self driving will likely be safer than human driven. The problem is this: How are you going to get RS to pull someone over if the car is programed to drive straight and follow all traffic laws to the letter? Same goes for a lot of other criminals that police nab on pretense driving violations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:32:31 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to worry, in a few more years, it'll be 0.1. If you blow anything but 0's you'll get a DUI. They need the money!!! Don't ya know, the govt is BROKE, especially at the local level!! In a few more years your car probably won't start if you blow over a .01. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:32:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Wont stop the pros out there
Just about money |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:37:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wont stop the pros out there Just about money Uber and changing societal attitudes about drinking has gotta be killing the DUI business. Probably hitting the diminishing returns point, just like cigarette taxes. Raise taxes, fewer people smoke, less tax money for governments to redistribute. Raise taxes again, even fewer people smoke, states run out of that sweet, sweet revenue to line their nest with. Rinse, repeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:37:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Gotta keep that sweet sweet money train moving somehow! Doin right ain't got no end. The checkpoints aren't bringing in enough cash. Have to find a way to make them profitable. Generally, here, at least what is reported, is around 5-9 DUI 's per night out of 150+ - vehicles stopped |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:38:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Isn't there an interstate commerce clause violation there as Texans wouldn't be able to drive in Utah?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:38:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why stop there? Why not just make alcohol illegal in Utah? It worked out so well when it was tried on the national level... Because the state makes lots of money with their alcohol sales tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:40:02 AM EDT
[#32]
I would say 60-70% of the drunks I get refuse a breath test anywyas and i still charge them so this is just "meh"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:40:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Polygamy is illegal in Utah. It is also not tolerated in the LDS church and those who try it are excommunicated. No underage wives either. The law is about idiots who routinely exercise poor judgment when it comes to their booze and cars. You are correct, it isn't about money or government overreach. It is about protecting the motoring public from assholes who drink and drive. As long as it's bashing Mormons the mods don't give two damns. You can say anything you want. True or not. Topic or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:42:05 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mormon's irrational fear of alcohol  In before we're told this has absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation at all to mormonism. Muslims do the exact same thing everywhere they accumulate power. < CoC1 violation removed. Warning issued. -- > has the same political outcome, but with the sensible haircut of an honest man in a starchy shirt and tie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:42:58 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see no reason to lower it to that level. A person can still be convicted of DUI at a .05 if you can demonstrate the person could not properly operate a vehicle. I have made several such cases. I'd love to see their research behind the new number. Agree 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:44:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd love to see their research behind the new number. $2,500 x 7,800 = $19,500,00 And that's how you 'State'. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:44:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before we're told this has absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation at all to mormonism. Muslims do the exact same thing everywhere they accumulate power. < Removed. Please don't complain about CoC violations and then quote them. -- BB > has the same political outcome, but with the sensible haircut of an honest man in a starchy shirt and tie. Way to turn this tread into a personal attack! Now we are Muslim. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:44:28 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uber and changing societal attitudes about drinking has gotta be killing the DUI business. Probably hitting the diminishing returns point, just like cigarette taxes. Raise taxes, fewer people smoke, less tax money for governments to redistribute. Raise taxes again, even fewer people smoke, states run out of that sweet, sweet revenue to line their nest with. Rinse, repeat. This guy gets it. When the state runs out of way to make criminals (and in turn revenue), it creates them. Anyone who thinks that nanny government is just a benevolent parent looking out for the people's best interest is a loon. That may have been the case once long ago, but it is certainly not the case today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:44:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the standard is already impairment and people are still driving drunk with .08, how does moving the presumptive threshold to .05 make anything more safe? The intent would be that those who are going to drink and drive will drink less because they understand that the threshold at which their license can be revoked or where they are legally drunk is lower. It is a deterrent. Apparently the citizens in Utah are tired of dealing with drunken assholes driving on their roads. ETA - I personally am of the opinion that it won't make a bit of difference because those with a proclivity to drink and drive will do it no matter what; they have neither good judgment nor self control and will continue to drink and drive. It is a vicious cycle for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:45:18 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryTopic much?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:45:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before we're told this has absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation at all to mormonism. Muslims do the exact same thing everywhere they accumulate power. < Removed. -- BB > has the same political outcome, but with the sensible haircut of an honest man in a starchy shirt and tie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mormon's irrational fear of alcohol In before we're told this has absolutely nothing to do with, and no relation at all to mormonism. Muslims do the exact same thing everywhere they accumulate power. < Removed. -- BB > has the same political outcome, but with the sensible haircut of an honest man in a starchy shirt and tie. Mormonism makes me chuckle too, but it's not just Mormons who back morality laws. Ever try and buy liquor on Sundays in Texas? Ever heard of dry counties? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:46:03 AM EDT
[#42]
In a perfect world, anything over .1 (or somewhere close) would be a DUI, and in the case of an accident, anything over .075 would lead to add-on criminal penalties based upon injuries and damage caused by the wreck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:48:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, you can get that from just sniffing the cap. Or an ounce of Nyquil. Don't have a cold and drive in Utah...LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:48:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here n AZ we have about five or so different DUI statutes that you can be charged with, one of which is termed "impaired to the slightest degree" meaning you could be a .01 and depending on how it was written you just bought yourself a DUI here. Here in WA if you blow over .08 it's a DWI. Anything under is a DUI, with all of the same penalties as a DWI. Happened to a friend of mine years ago. He blew a .06 and figured he was good since he was under the legal limit. Nope, cuffed and stuffed. Cost him well over $8000 before he was all done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:57:11 AM EDT
[#45]
This is a good resource that shows how many drinks will cause impairment http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html. The chart is based on averages, so there will be some that can handle more alcohol in their system and not be impaired. For example, an average 180 lb. male can have a beer with his lunch, especially if he waits about half an hour before driving. Have a few beers?, he may be pushing it. Some may not show impairment, but on the average they will. When I was a patrolman, I seldom encountered someone who was DUI that had only had a couple drinks with a meal. It was nearly always someone who was shitfaced drunk, or who couldn't handle their liquor and decided to drive anyway. Only twice did I encounter someone below .08 who I charged with driving impaired. They both appeared and acted like their BAC was much higher than it was. Best just to exercise good judgment and know when to call a cab or get a ride home with a sober person. Again, those who get DUI's rarely have good judgment and good common sense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:00:15 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mormonism makes me chuckle too, but it's not just Mormons who back morality laws. Ever try and buy liquor on Sundays in Texas? Ever heard of dry counties? You're absolutely right on all counts. This particular one's on < Removed. -- BB > though. Along with their bullshit 3% ABV beer limit. I'm not aware of that anyplace else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:04:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're absolutely right on all counts. This particular one's on < Removed. -- BB > though. Along with their bullshit 3% ABV beer limit. I'm not aware of that anyplace else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mormonism makes me chuckle too, but it's not just Mormons who back morality laws. Ever try and buy liquor on Sundays in Texas? Ever heard of dry counties? You're absolutely right on all counts. This particular one's on < Removed. -- BB > though. Along with their bullshit 3% ABV beer limit. I'm not aware of that anyplace else. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:06:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here in WA if you blow over .08 it's a DWI. Anything under is a DUI, with all of the same penalties as a DWI. Happened to a friend of mine years ago. He blew a .06 and figured he was good since he was under the legal limit. Nope, cuffed and stuffed. Cost him well over $8000 before he was all done. This is why it pays to: a) Not speak to the police if you have been doing stupid shit, and b) Know the law in your state If a cop asks me to do FST my answer is "no". There is implied consent for breath or blood in my AO. I don't have to speak with or walk for them. Your buddy probably did a FST and made it easy for the cop to prove impairment - maybe on camera for the jury to watch and laugh at him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:09:30 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here in WA if you blow over .08 it's a DWI. Anything under is a DUI, with all of the same penalties as a DWI. Happened to a friend of mine years ago. He blew a .06 and figured he was good since he was under the legal limit. Nope, cuffed and stuffed. Cost him well over $8000 before he was all done. The last I heard Ohio is basically the same with OVI. Really just their discretion if they'll charge you or not, slightly tougher argument for impairment on their side, still cost the driver the same. Since intoxicated means any intoxicating substance, pills/weed etc, you get the same charges without a BAC reading at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:10:09 PM EDT
[#50]
There should be a license qual to drink and drive.
Go get tested and see how much you can swill down and still drive OK then that gets put on your license. There are people in this state that can't fucking drive safely when they're sober. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
