If you read the article, you would understand why plenty of innocent people would be going to jail under your scenario.
I think the tests should be accurate, my point is that we are way too lenient on drunk driving
I hope you never have to bury a couple of friends or family murdered by drunken drivers.
Not a big drinker these days, but if you're going to do that ,then may as well go back to prohibition. Short of that, you will at least effectively kill the restaurant business. MADD will love it, though. Well, maybe not their past president, who herself was convicted of DUI.
This is what is used in NEPA. A breathalyzer is used at the scene to determine an approximate BAC, and then blood is taken by a trained phlebotomist at a hospital or designated site for accuracy. It also will show if there are other drugs in the system. Blood also can't be disputed in court.
Back when I was in high school (long, long ago), we had the police come in and do a demonstration of a breathalizer. To show how sensitive (a.k.a accurate) they were, they had a student volunteer, gave him some Listerine to rince his mouth out with, then did a breathalizer test on him. It came back at 1.4 (NOTE anything above about .4 will kill you). Since he hadn't drank anything (other than rinsing his mouth out with Listerine), an accurate test would have shown "0" as a blood alcohol level. So obviously, there is some concern for accuracy, at least back when I was in high school.
I've always heard this is the best approach if you're ever asked to take one. Here in Austin we have what they call "no refusal" weekends, which started on big drinking holidays but now is basically every weekend. You still have the right to refuse, but if you do on a no refusal weekend the police have a judge on standby to issue immediate warrants, which allows them to take your blood without your consent. They then do so and are able to collect evidence before the alcohol has had time to leave your system. It was quite controversial when it was first rolled out but now it's been in place so long it hasn't really been a topic of discussion recently.
A swig of mouthwash you get you "locked up", which wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO, provided it was just you.
It depends on state. In PA they have implied consent. If you refuse your license is automatically suspended for a year regardless of the outcome of DUI case. The police can still get a DUI conviction without the test results. They just have to testify that they obeserved your impairment.
Right, why is it a political question. Why would someone have strong opinions about DUI when it comes the alcohol be on the side of legalization of another substance that would contribute to a DUI. I get confused why the Left is pushing the issue.
If you are against DUI, you are against DUI- regardless of what the influence is
Pretty dumb post. Should they arrest people who text and drive? How about eat and drive? And of course we need to jail anyone who speeds since speed is the number one cause of accidents.
And on this they can, and if necessary, will certainly lie. For this reason one would be crazy to refuse. Police are masters at embellishment and outright lies. And they get away with it all the time.
No I’m not...you want to lock people up for having a beer or eating while driving, but you’re perfectly fine with them speeding. Not sure of the logic.
Well, I said noting either way about speeding, did I? But let's pretend that I did. My rebuttal would then be:
