Prohibition Returns!

[zbeeblebrox]

wow that was a good article. yes a little one sided but it makes you think about where you stand in the debate. as for me, being on the heavy side and standing 6'5" i don't think I, or anyone else, would notice if i were at .08% but then again its the law,and if I'm at that mark then i broke the law. that being said, then anything below that IS LEGAL and should therefore not be enforced to the law of .08%. as for police i can't complain about them as a whole. they are there to keep the city/town safe. yes there may be one or two who are dicks and they should be called on it by the people they target that are doing nothing wrong. best defense against them is know the law and ask that they follow it.
as for the nanny state idea just remember I'm a Conservative constitutionalist, a member of the NRA, i drive a gross polluter (classic triumph). i would like nothing more then to be left alone in Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I, and the vast majority of people in the country are good people who make good decisions. so for me the less intrusion the better, especially of the intrusion is by so called do-gooders who think they know whats best for me.
now with that rant done its time for me to relax sit back and have a beer.

 

[Fingers]

Is not 0.08% the same for everyone? It's a percentage of alcohol in the blood. It may take 1 beer for a small person and 2 beers for a large person but in the end it's still a ratio of alcohol to blood. Whether or not 0.08% affects you weakly or strongly is an issue of tolerance which is related to habitual consumption, not size. The law is perfectly fair in that regard. Way out of line with reality, but fair.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Is not 0.08% the same for everyone? It's a percentage of alcohol in the blood. It may take 1 beer for a small person and 2 beers for a large person but in the end it's still a ratio of alcohol to blood. Whether or not 0.08% affects you weakly or strongly is an issue of tolerance which is related to habitual consumption, not size. The law is perfectly fair in that regard. Way out of line with reality, but fair.

yes. Their are also way more factors besides Body weight. .08 is going to effect everyone the same, weather they think so or not.

 

[Dude]

I have also SEEN the cops come into a bar and give small verbal tests to the guys sitting around the bar. They actually arrested on guy cause he was drunk. Got him for PI, while SITTING IN A BAR!

Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that.

 

[Sherpa FE]

We're losing more and more freedoms every day. People seem to want to live in a nanny state. I just don't understand it. And it's not just drinking laws. The city right next to be now has photo-enforced intersections. Pull into the crosswalk on red - CLICK - $100 dollar ticket coming your way.

We're slowly becoming a technocracy where everything we do will be monitored - ALL in the name of safety.

I know I am gonna get flamed, but here goes....

Actually I am glad they are doing that at intersections, personally I am getting tired of almost getting killed at intersections because some other person is in too much of a hurry to slow down at a yellow light, and then stop. I also think that they should put up photo boxes on roads for people that speed, you are going to fast on a road, click. Your ticket shows up in the mail.
The American public has the general idea that driving is a right. It's not, and too many people needlessly die because of stupidity.

The laws are not made for you or me as individuals, but for everyone, and thats why people will always have a problem with them, because it doesnt suit thier needs.

So why do we need all these stupid laws? Well if people always did the right thing, we wouldnt need them now would we?

 

[Ryanh1801]

Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that.

Actually its true, Texas passed a law allowing PI's to be given in a bar. I worked in a bar when all this was going on, I believe it was latter removed from the legislation, because of all the pissed off people and lawyers.

 

[Dude]

wow lots of false info in this thread.
If you drink don't drive easy as that. A taxi is cheap. I don't care if its 5 beers or one, it is affecting your motor skills, and you better be willing to take on the responsibility of the ticket or worse case killing someone.

That is why the law is so stupid. 1 beer for me would probably put me at .02-.03. I could still get a ticket for that--and I guarantee it isnt affecting my motor skills. I guarantee it.

A taxi? You must live in BFE. Here, it isn't very cost effective to do a taxi--nor would I want to even step foot in one. I'm not kidding it cost 3 of us 27 dollars to go 2 1/2 miles the last time we decided to "do the smart thing" and get a taxi home.

I'm gonna get flogged for this, but 9 times out of 10 I'm tempted to press my luck for 2 1/2 miles. Now that isn't saying, .14 drunk, that is saying .06 drunk. Where I could get a ticket for having those 3 beers in 4 hours BS. Where the A-hole cops can still get you for whatever they feel like saying.

 

[Dude]

Actually its true, Texas passed a law allowing PI's to be given in a bar. I worked in a bar when all this was going on, I believe it was latter removed from the legislation, because of all the pissed off people and lawyers.

Yeah, that's why it got removed. It was illegal for the cops to do it. Even if it DID happen, they could not hold it up in a court if you fought it. It would be entrapment or something similar to that.

 

[Ryanh1801]

That is why the law is so stupid. 1 beer for me would probably put me at .02-.03. I could still get a ticket for that--and I guarantee it isnt affecting my motor skills. I guarantee it.

A taxi? You must live in BFE. Here, it isn't very cost effective to do a taxi--nor would I want to even step foot in one. I'm not kidding it cost 3 of us 27 dollars to go 2 1/2 miles the last time we decided to "do the smart thing" and get a taxi home.

I'm gonna get flogged for this, but 9 times out of 10 I'm tempted to press my luck for 2 1/2 miles. Now that isn't saying, .14 drunk, that is saying .06 drunk. Where I could get a ticket for having those 3 beers in 4 hours BS. Where the A-hole cops can still get you for whatever they feel like saying.

I have seen people fail the gaze test from two beers. Every time I go out we get a taxi, between 4 people it is always around 10 bucks a person round trip. Its a small price to pay. A DWI charge in Texas is gonna cost you 6-8 grand to take care of. If I don't have money for a taxi I figure I don't need to go out anyways.

This is sort of a sore subject with me. I was hit by a drunk driver two years ago and totaled out my truck he only blew a .09, also one of my good high school friends is now in a wheelchair due to a drunk driver.

Ill get off my rant box now. :fro:

 

[SwAMi75]

Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that.

Actually, that was all over the news when I was down at Ft. Hood last year. Unfrigginbelievable.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Sorry, sleeping in your truck when your drunk is against the law too (in some states, OK for one), because you have posession of the keys, (in the ignition or in your pocket). In their mind, you can start the truck and drive drunk when they are gone. It is called APC (Actual Physical Control), and it carries a penalty the same as a DUI. I have also SEEN the cops come into a bar and give small verbal tests to the guys sitting around the bar. They actually arrested on guy cause he was drunk. Got him for PI, while SITTING IN A BAR!
Again, like most other laws it comes down to $$$. Why raise tax's and have the chance you may not get re-elected, just lower the BAC and catch more people and fill the local tills. And on top of that, you look good for the nannie-state wannabes that your protecting the innocent people. Want to see a good example of how America is heading to a nannie state? Look at the UK, those people are going to wake up one day and realize Orwell was right, just a few decades off.

that's absolutely, f'd up. But, true. When I get drunk and sleep in my car, I always put the keys under the front tire. Can't do anything to me thne Simple solution, and a great way to piss off cops when they can't do anything.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Sorry, but I gotta call BS on that.

I agree, you could fight that one in court and win no doubt.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I have also SEEN the cops come into a bar and give small verbal tests to the guys sitting around the bar. They actually arrested on guy cause he was drunk. Got him for PI, while SITTING IN A BAR!

That kinda throws out the whole Tater Salad argument:

"I was drunk in a bar! You THREW me into public-k!"

 

[Ryanh1801]

that's absolutely, f'd up. But, true. When I get drunk and sleep in my car, I always put the keys under the front tire. Can't do anything to me thne Simple solution, and a great way to piss off cops when they can't do anything.

You would probably still go to jail. Its a liability issue.

 

[Dude]

You would probably still go to jail. Its a liability issue.

How? The car miraculously started?

You could fight that BS in court and win.

Just curious, but is your car considered a "public" place?

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

You would probably still go to jail. Its a liability issue.

Dude, I would fight that tooth & nail, then I would sue the **** out of whatever police force f'ed me over. I HATE power tripping cops, I hate driving in fear after 1 or 2 beers, even though nothing will happen.... if anything, the fear is making my driving suffer.

 

[Ryanh1801]

How? The car miraculously started?

You could fight that BS in court and win.

Just curious, but is your car considered a "public" place?

Yes it would probably get thrown out in court. But if the officer comes and checks on you, and leaves. Then you take off and kill someone, that officer is gonna be a fault. As I said its a liability issue. We had this very discussion in one of my CJ classes. Our teacher a former Police officer said they would take them in every time.

 

[Dude]

Dude, I would fight that tooth & nail, then I would sue the **** out of whatever police force f'ed me over. I HATE power tripping cops, I hate driving in fear after 1 or 2 beers, even though nothing will happen.... if anything, the fear is making my driving suffer.

That is totally how I feel. It makes my blood boil that I could essentially get my career and my life FUBAR'd because I had 2 beers and some dick cop decides he is having a bad day and needs to beat someone down.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Yes it would probably get thrown out in court. But if the officer comes and checks on you, and leaves. Then you take off and kill someone, that officer is gonna be a fault. As I said its a liability issue. We had this very discussion in one of my CJ classes. Our teacher a former Police officer said they would take them in every time.

For doing the responsible thing and not driving: pricks.

 

[Dude]

Yes it would probably get thrown out in court. But if the officer comes and checks on you, and leaves. Then you take off and kill someone, that officer is gonna be a fault. As I said its a liability issue. We had this very discussion in one of my CJ classes. Our teacher a former Police officer said they would take them in every time.

And that "former" cop needs his ass kicked in a bad way. That cop who didn't take that guy in cannot be held responsible for that. That is ridiculous.

 

[Ryanh1801]

And that "former" cop needs his ass kicked in a bad way. That cop who didn't take that guy in cannot be held responsible for that. That is ridiculous.

Departmental policy not much you can do about it.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Now I'm all fired up about how much I hate cops... I'm gonna watch some father ted and calm down.

No offense to you at all, Ryan, I total understand your bias. I had a friend in high school who drove drunk and killed an old man, I feel he deserved everything he got for that ****. My dad was hit by a drunk driver and it scalped his head, he was in the hospital for a week. But, the fact is, these people were morons, they ere completely irresponsible and WAY beyond .08. When I'm being responsible and leaving the friend's house after only 2 or 3 beers, or when I decide I"m too drunk to drive and I"m gonna sleep it off in my car, I should be praised if anything. F' those power hungry, egotistical cops.

 

[Whiskey]

And that "former" cop needs his ass kicked in a bad way. That cop who didn't take that guy in cannot be held responsible for that. That is ridiculous.

Actually yes the Officer would be held responsible. Legally and civilly. As far as the getting a DUI in a parked car, DUI/DWI apply everywhere, you could be doing donuts in your front lawn with a BAC of .08 and get arrested for DUI.

I've also never seen a DUI case get thrown because the drunk was sleeping his car. It probably happens, but it will depend on the judge and how well the Officer dotted his I's and crossed his T's.

 

[mrkristofo]

On the note of public intoxication, I concur that it is ridiculous, but there is a reason for it other than giving a reason for cops to hassle drunks.

The reasoning is that the law enforcement agencies are established to serve and protect, and that for an officer to acknowledge you're drunk and potentially dangerous to (not only others) yourself, but not take any action, falls into the realm of negligence on the officer's part. It's that liability thing again. I know, it sounds absurd, but we went over it in a state and local government course. There's a case behind it somewhere that maybe one of the legal types can help me out with.

But relevant to public intoxication, you should all know that if you are cited three times for public urination you are a registered sex offender. Just in case anyone's on the verge and has the urge....

 

[Ryanh1801]

Now I'm all fired up about how much I hate cops... I'm gonna watch some father ted and calm down.

No offense to you at all, Ryan, I total understand your bias. I had a friend in high school who drove drunk and killed an old man, I feel he deserved everything he got for that ****. My dad was hit by a drunk driver and it scalped his head, he was in the hospital for a week. But, the fact is, these people were morons, they ere completely irresponsible and WAY beyond .08. When I'm being responsible and leaving the friend's house after only 2 or 3 beers, or when I decide I"m too drunk to drive and I"m gonna sleep it off in my car, I should be praised if anything. F' those power hungry, egotistical cops.

Sorry I got two bias's working against me. Going into LE I have to read way to many ****ed up cases. Don't hate on me. I see your points and trust me, I think its ****ty that if you have no plan to drive to go to jail. Just one of those things I guess.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Actually yes the Officer would be held responsible. Legally and civilly. As far as the getting a DUI in a parked car, DUI/DWI apply everywhere, you could be doing donuts in your front lawn with a BAC of .08 and get arrested for DUI.

I've also never seen a DUI case get thrown because the drunk was sleeping his car. It probably happens, but it will depend on the judge and how well the Officer dotted his I's and crossed his T's.

DOing donuts in your car is a lot different then sleeping in your car with the keys on the outside, which they CANNOT arrest you for. I've talked to the DA from my hometown about it. Now that's in Alabama, so I dunno about other states for sure, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Whiskey]

My bad missed the keys outside the vehicle part.

 

[Dude]

On the note of public intoxication, I concur that it is ridiculous, but there is a reason for it other than giving a reason for cops to hassle drunks.

The reasoning is that the law enforcement agencies are established to serve and protect, and that for an officer to acknowledge you're drunk and potentially dangerous to (not only others) yourself, but not take any action, falls into the realm of negligence on the officer's part. It's that liability thing again. I know, it sounds absurd, but we went over it in a state and local government course. There's a case behind it somewhere that maybe one of the legal types can help me out with.

But relevant to public intoxication, you should all know that if you are cited three times for public urination you are a registered sex offender. Just in case anyone's on the verge and has the urge....

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

 

[mrkristofo]

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

That was my reaction too. You have to give the officer reason to think you're posing a danger though, so sleeping in your car wouldn't do it. But I'm no lawyer, nor am I a cop. Just a guy sitting through a law class. I'll look for the case. If I remember right, the details were something like this woman was obviously very drunk, cop came by and asked if she was ok, she belligerently said some things to him and he left. She was assaulted later, and then filed suit against the officer responsible for not giving her a ride.

 

[Whiskey]

Oh come on. So I could be dead sober, sleeping in my car, but suicidal. The officer could be held accountable because he was negligent in not taking me in because I was a hazard to hurt myself? BS.

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

 

[Evan!]

Just one of those things I guess.

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

 

[mrkristofo]

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

Just as if he'd seen him sleeping in his car, dead sober, with a hose going from the exhaust to the window...

and for what it's worth, I've spent about 45 minutes looking for the case that was discussed in class. I can't find it, so perhaps it was an example. I can find that PI has been a crime since it dates back to a 1606 English statute, 4 Jac. 1, c. 5; and that in all states (except MO) public intoxication is a crime, and it defined as "A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another." As it's written, harming themselves is definitely a concern. Or being in a state that makes them more vulnerable to robbery, assault, etc.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

 

[Evan!]

If the Officer found you sleeping in your care, dead sober, wakes you up to check on you and you spontaneously tell him "I was sleeping in my car because I'm going to kill myself" and the Officer does nothing about it and you go on kill yourself, you can bet your ass he would be held responsible.

But me sleeping in my car drunk without the keys is no more a forewarning that I'm gonna go kill someone than if I happened to have a hunting knife in the glove compartment.

We're seriously starting to tread on the realm of Pre-Crime here. Where do we draw the line? And yeah, this also starts to shift this debate over into the realm of civil liability law, which is somewhere I'm just not prepared to venture at this point in the night. But the point is, if you get arrested for DUI, etc., and have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just so some doofus police officer can cover his ass from a liability suit, the something is seriously f*cking wrong with our system.

 

[Ryanh1801]

But me sleeping in my car drunk without the keys is no more a forewarning that I'm gonna go kill someone than if I happened to have a hunting knife in the glove compartment.

We're seriously starting to tread on the realm of Pre-Crime here. Where do we draw the line? And yeah, this also starts to shift this debate over into the realm of civil liability law, which is somewhere I'm just not prepared to venture at this point in the night. But the point is, if you get arrested for DUI, etc., and have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just so some doofus police officer can cover his ass from a liability suit, the something is seriously f*cking wrong with our system.

If it makes any difference our teacher said in those cases the DA would normally not accept charges, so its not like you where out any money, just one night of your life in jail.

 

[Evan!]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

Word...

but it's the government that allows it to happen by letting someone who is financially vested in the case(s) act as an officer of the court. Sure, it'd completely turn our economy on its head, but think about it for a second: what if, every time you wanted to sue someone, you were appointed a government legal rep who had no vested financial interest in the outcome. How many "20 million dollars goes to you because you spilled coffee on your own dumb self" suits do you think we'd see through the courts? It IS the attorneys...but only because the government allows it. It's why OJ can get off but a small-time junky can't...and it's why some money-grubbing hack puts an ad on the teevee right after Merck screws up on their drug testing: the government allows financially-vested players to be officers of the court. It's wacked.

edit: didn't I just say I wasn't prepared to tread here?v

 

[rdwj]

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

Well said - 4 stars from me!!

 

[Evan!]

If it makes any difference our teacher said in those cases the DA would normally not accept charges, so its not like you where out any money, just one night of your life in jail.

But regardless, the spectre is enough to scare someone into attempting to drive home (and risk arrest) or walk home (and risk arrest) or hang out at the bar for a little longer (and risk arrest). All of this has a chilling effect, which is sort of the point of the original article I linked to: it's the new, more insidious and covert type of prohibition. Instead of just outright banning booze, which the public would never agree to in this day and age, they just make it extremely difficult to drink anywhere.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

But regardless, the spectre is enough to scare someone into attempting to drive home (and risk arrest) or walk home (and risk arrest) or hang out at the bar for a little longer (and risk arrest). All of this has a chilling effect, which is sort of the point of the original article I linked to: it's the new, more insidious and covert type of prohibition. Instead of just outright banning booze, which the public would never agree to in this day and age, they just make it extremely difficult to drink anywhere.

Well put.

 

[finchlake]

I had to get my wife out of jail on christmas eve three years ago. She had a 0.00 alcohol level. She was arrested on open container. She had a steafoam(sp) cup inthe console from a frozen mix drink. With the help of our sorry public defender, he had her plead guilty to dwi.