| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2013 11:36:28 AM · #1 |
| Good to know. Good to know. |
|
|
|
03/20/2013 03:14:42 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, that should give us a shot of confidence for those field sobriety tests. ;) You are definitely full of interesting anecdotes Robert.
And just to see if Ed is watching...Skunk head! Just thought I'd shout it out. :D |
I'm always watching. Narcissism and arrogance make for entertaining reads. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 07:31:55 PM · #3 |
Well, that should give us a shot of confidence for those field sobriety tests. ;) You are definitely full of interesting anecdotes Robert.
And just to see if Ed is watching...Skunk head! Just thought I'd shout it out. :D |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 06:31:19 PM · #4 |
It would appear the two terms are both interchangeable and swappable, LOL. That is to say, some states have only one or the other, and those that have both may rank them differently...
I have a reasonably close relationship to these laws, in a way, because I have a nerve deafness, meaning I have no feeling in my semi-circular canals and no natural sense of balance. I can't even easily "walk a straight line" heel-to-toe in daylight, let alone at night. Couple that with the fact that my speech is not natural-sounding, and often slightly slurred, and I became a frequent target of hassle in roadside sobriety checks, which were abundant in the beach town where I lived for so many years, Ocean Beach in San Diego.
They'd pull over every fifth car or whatever at a roadside sobriety check, and I wouldn't understand what the policeman was saying because he'd be shining a light in my face. I'd explain as best I could that I was deaf etc etc, but invariably I'd be invited out of the car, put through the finger-to-nose and straight-line tests, and prepared for transport downtown. Seriously. This happened several times. This was before on-site breathalyzers. Always I was released, but then I had to go get my car out of impound, and it all took hours.
Finally an attorney friend of mine had words with the police, and I actually got a signed letter from the Chief of Police telling officers to leave me alone unless I was clearly a rolling drunk, and that did the trick.
Life was interesting in those days... |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 06:20:02 PM · #5 |
Just to say how I was using it...I had always associated DWI with alcohol in particular and DUI with a more general "under the influence". However, I have also heard it used as a "lesser DWI" type charge. I think years ago in Washington at least there was a 0.1 limit for DWI and a 0.08 limit for DUI. These days I think it's all 0.08.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2013 05:51:55 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you live in a jurisdiction that classifies them separately, DUI is the lesser charge. |
That was not how the judge saw the law in the case I sat on a jury for. the defendant was charged with both DUI and separately DWI.
It's illegal to drive a car while "impaired" by the effects of alcohol or drugs (including prescription drugs). This means that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the driver's body to prevent him from thinking clearly or driving safely. Many people reach this level well before they'd be considered "drunk" or "stoned." In this case the officer stopped the defendant and had him do some tests, there after he was charged with DUI. The officer felt alcohol had impaired his ability to drive. The jury was to consider the testimony of the officer and the defendant and make a finding, but not to consider the blood test since that was a separate charge.
An adult who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above is guilty of a DWI (driving while intoxicated) -- no matter how sober the driver feels, or how well that person was driving. If the test is accurate and well administered, there is no issue of she said he said, no shadings of truth. It is chemical. |
The sources I'm tracking all have it the other way around:
"DWI and DUI refer to driving while intoxicated and driving under the influence. DWI typically refers to intoxication due to alcohol, whereas, DUI can refer to a variety of different drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and other judgment impairing substances used by themselves or in conjunction with alcohol. Here, we discuss the common terms and definitions associated with DWI and DUI.
Breathalyzer is a term that you may have heard frequently when discussing a DUI or a DWI case. This is a test that is usually administered when the driver is pulled over, at roadside. The driver blows into a device, and readings indicate the suspect's blood alcohol content level (BAC). If someone's blood alcohol content level is 0.08 or higher, then he or she is not considered fit to drive and can be arrested for DWI."
Here's one of them. I haven't seen anything anywhere saying DUI is a worse offense than DWI, although it seems that most of the time the terms are interchangeable, with just SOME states using both terms for different degrees of intoxication or whatever... |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 04:41:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you live in a jurisdiction that classifies them separately, DUI is the lesser charge. |
That was not how the judge saw the law in the case I sat on a jury for. the defendant was charged with both DUI and separately DWI.
It's illegal to drive a car while "impaired" by the effects of alcohol or drugs (including prescription drugs). This means that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the driver's body to prevent him from thinking clearly or driving safely. Many people reach this level well before they'd be considered "drunk" or "stoned." In this case the officer stopped the defendant and had him do some tests, there after he was charged with DUI. The officer felt alcohol had impaired his ability to drive. The jury was to consider the testimony of the officer and the defendant and make a finding, but not to consider the blood test since that was a separate charge.
An adult who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above is guilty of a DWI (driving while intoxicated) -- no matter how sober the driver feels, or how well that person was driving. If the test is accurate and well administered, there is no issue of she said he said, no shadings of truth. It is chemical. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 04:25:48 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the healing powers of pot are the same shill game as the hemp ropes and the hemp clothes. It's ballyhoo in order to bring about legalized pot for everybody. That's my official medical opinion. |
I have to disagree and agree. Some of the folks who are promoting industrial hemp are mostly only out to try to legalize pot for smoking, but you could smoke a cubic yard of hemp and not get high. It is illegal to grow because it is similar enough to confuse those who are unwilling to see a difference, not because it is the same. The big however is that the fiber itself used to be a staple of industry, because it grows so fast and is such a strong fiber.
Hemp used to be fine. Early laws in some American colonies actually required farmers to grow hemp. Many of our earliest presidents, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, all grew hemp. The American Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper. Abraham Lincoln used hemp seed oil to fuel the lamps in his home.The U.S.S. Constitution was rigged with 60 tons of hemp sails and rigging.In 1942, Henry Ford built an experimental car body out of hemp fiber, which is ten times stronger than steel. C-class Mercedes-Benz automobiles have more than 30 parts made of natural fibers, including hemp.
But in these days of not enough space to grow the trees we need to build our houses and make paper to dry our hands on, it is idiotic that we can import hemp, but we are not allowed to grow it. Global production of wood pulp in 2006 was 175 million tons, and trees are not as efficient at making fiber as hemp is. We should use it. Nice paper published by Purdue on the subject |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 03:44:04 PM · #9 |
| You know Paul, I remember back in undergrad seeing the people who had their signs and swore that our society would be so much more advanced if we only had hemp products. Our ropes would be stronger and our clothes would be more stylish. Even back then I was already smart enough to know it was just so much hyperbole because there was an alternate agenda. Medical marijuana is similar in my eyes. Sure there are some benefits and, sure, if you have end stage cancer I don't really care what you do if you feel it helps, but the healing powers of pot are the same shill game as the hemp ropes and the hemp clothes. It's ballyhoo in order to bring about legalized pot for everybody. That's my official medical opinion. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 03:01:48 PM · #10 |
I'm pretty sure the Washington statute specifies the legal limit for driving under the influence of THC, and the methods to test for same.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Pot, on the other hand, has no other redeeming factor. Perhaps an important difference, and perhaps part of the reason I find no need to legalize it. It has no redeeming benefit to society. |
This statement is incomprehensible coming from someone who is currently licensed to practice medicine. I'm tempted to ask what you've been smoking ...
1. Marijuana has been used medicinally for about 3000 years, with no documented adverse effects other than those attributable to smoking any vegetable matter.
2. Marijuana is currently used medicinally by thousands of people without demonstrable harm to themselves or society. For some cancer patients, it is an essential component of their treatment.
3. Most of the "harm" caused to families by the use of illegal drugs is a direct consequence of their condition of illegality, not the biologic effects of the substance. I dare you to prove otherwise.
4. According to some old document, "our creator" endowed us with an unalienable right to "pursue happiness" -- so who the heck are you to decide what route (or with which mind-altering substance) someone takes in that pursuit, as long as they're not doing anything to interfere with your own journey to nirvana?
5. Drugs have been made illegal because of arbitrary political decisions, not medical analysis.
   When I was looking through the Merck catalog back in the mid-1970s, cocaine HCl USP was available for about $100/ounce (street value at the time about $2000). My mom was prescribed Dexedrine (similar to methamphetamine) for years.
Marijuana was made illegal at a time when it was almost exclusively used by Blacks (really screwed up Louis Armstrong's life, didn't it?) and newly-arriving Mexican immigrants, when it appeared white kids were starting to discover a safer and cheaper high than alcohol, and DuPont was seeking to create a market for their newly-developed artificial fiber, Nylon® ...
Reefer Madness, anyone?
ETA; See if your library has a copy of Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes: The Authoritative History of the Cannabis Plant ...
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 15:28:03. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 03:00:51 PM · #11 |
Sir, my advanced age has given me a vestibular problem. I get dizzy when I try to walk a straight line.
Robert, I didn't need that. I understand. The question is if there is no test for the legal or illegal drug, how do you establish the fact a drug is the cause for the driving? |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:59:15 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are. |
Actually the breathalyzer sets you up for a different charge. DUI versus DWI. You can be charged with Driving Under the Influence no matter if you are over the legal limit or not, if you are driving badly and the officer thinks it is due to whatever is in your system. On the other hand, no matter how well you are driving, if you have over a certain level of intoxicants in your system Driving While Intoxicated is a crime. They are often charged together, but are separate charges; DUI is observational, DWI is chemical.(I sat on a DUI/DWI jury so I learned more minutia on this than I hope to ever need.)
I expect operating a vehicle for marijuana intoxication will be charged the same way we charge for the various other intoxicants you can't drive while under the influence of;
Sleeping pills such as Sonata, Ambien and Halcion
Stimulants
Sedatives
Prescribed narcotic like Codeine or medicine containing amounts of Codeine
Prescribed pain medicine such as Duragesic, Vicodin and Oxycontin
Common over the counter liquid like NyQuil or TheraFlu
Allergy pills such as Benadryl
Medication to treat diabetes like Amaryl, Insulin and Glucotrol
Not to mention illegal drugs.
None as easy to test for, yet just as dangerous as alcohol in the system. |
How does this work again? The cop pulls you over because you seem to be erratic in your driving. He asks you if you've taken anything and you say, "no". How are you going to be guilty of a DUI instead of some version of negligent driving? If you are driving under the influence I would think you would need to be able to say what that influence was? Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the legal finery of such charges. Think about an 80 year old swerving on the road. Are they swerving because they are old (and shouldn't be driving) or because they took benadryl or because they were smoking pot? I don't think the cop can just make that call if they have no actionable evidence. |
Here are a bunch of lawyers answering that question from various states... //www.lawqa.com/qa/how-do-they-test-for-dui-when-not-drinking-alchohol2 |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:47:44 PM · #13 |
well normally you do a sobriety test, i.e. they make you walk a straight line among other things. i know when someone cant drive a car after drinking and bet a cop could tell too without a breathalyzer, let alone other substances.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:46:45 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does this work again? The cop pulls you over because you seem to be erratic in your driving. He asks you if you've taken anything and you say, "no". How are you going to be guilty of a DUI instead of some version of negligent driving? If you are driving under the influence I would think you would need to be able to say what that influence was? Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the legal finery of such charges. Think about an 80 year old swerving on the road. Are they swerving because they are old (and shouldn't be driving) or because they took benadryl or because they were smoking pot? I don't think the cop can just make that call if they have no actionable evidence. |
Both DUI and DWI refer to the illegal act of driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. The chief difference lies in what the letters mean. DUI designates driving under the influence, while DWI refers to driving while intoxicated. While they may sound identical on the surface, some states actually classify them as separate crimes.
If you live in a jurisdiction that classifies them separately, DUI is the lesser charge. A DUI charge denotes a lesser degree of impairment than a DWI for a driver charged with drinking and driving. Level of impairment is determined by the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest. In some cases, the state may agree to a plea bargain, reducing a more serious charge of DWI to DUI. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:42:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are. |
Actually the breathalyzer sets you up for a different charge. DUI versus DWI. You can be charged with Driving Under the Influence no matter if you are over the legal limit or not, if you are driving badly and the officer thinks it is due to whatever is in your system. On the other hand, no matter how well you are driving, if you have over a certain level of intoxicants in your system Driving While Intoxicated is a crime. They are often charged together, but are separate charges; DUI is observational, DWI is chemical.(I sat on a DUI/DWI jury so I learned more minutia on this than I hope to ever need.)
I expect operating a vehicle for marijuana intoxication will be charged the same way we charge for the various other intoxicants you can't drive while under the influence of;
Sleeping pills such as Sonata, Ambien and Halcion
Stimulants
Sedatives
Prescribed narcotic like Codeine or medicine containing amounts of Codeine
Prescribed pain medicine such as Duragesic, Vicodin and Oxycontin
Common over the counter liquid like NyQuil or TheraFlu
Allergy pills such as Benadryl
Medication to treat diabetes like Amaryl, Insulin and Glucotrol
Not to mention illegal drugs.
None as easy to test for, yet just as dangerous as alcohol in the system. |
How does this work again? The cop pulls you over because you seem to be erratic in your driving. He asks you if you've taken anything and you say, "no". How are you going to be guilty of a DUI instead of some version of negligent driving? If you are driving under the influence I would think you would need to be able to say what that influence was? Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the legal finery of such charges. Think about an 80 year old swerving on the road. Are they swerving because they are old (and shouldn't be driving) or because they took benadryl or because they were smoking pot? I don't think the cop can just make that call if they have no actionable evidence. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:33:43 PM · #16 |
| the problem it we'd have broken glass all over the place from the lazy asses who cant wait to find a trash or recylcing can. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:24:12 PM · #17 |
I haven't read the whole discussion and it seems to have veered off into drugs (big surprise, lol) but to bring it back to portion sizes/self control, look no further than this study:
Bad popcorn in a big bucket
On topic, I currently am in the Dominican Republic staring at a 14 oz bottle of coke I only drank half of, and wishing it was even smaller. I hate to waste, I was just so desperate for something cold to drink and they had nothing else.
But if it was up to me, I'd ban plastic too and go back to the old days of reusing glass bottles. They still do it with beer in Germany and I think it's a great system. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:00:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ann: Quebec's cigarette smuggling isn't a red herring. It's a cautionary tale. Maybe you have a great deal more faith in your government to "get it right" when it comes to regulation. I don't know what reason we'd have to offer that faith, but that may be a difference between us. You did get me wrong on the harm issue. I'll try to rephrase. If society has legalized pot and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I bear some societal blame for their pain. If society holds pot illegal and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I do not bear the same societal guilt. You may not hold the same distinction, but it means something to me. |
Quebec's cigarette smuggling is indeed a cautionary tale about the ills of bad regulation, but it still has nothing to do with prohibition. I still argue that Quebec would be a lot worse off if they completely outlawed cigarettes.
As far as the second part of your argument, "If society has legalized pot and someone screws their life up because of their smoking, I feel I bear some societal blame for their pain," I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As a recovering alcoholic, I do not blame society for my past problems, any more than I give society credit for my recovery, and I don't for a second believe that outlawing alcohol (or drugs) would make my life, or anyone else's, better in any meaningful way. Alcoholics and drug addicts will find a way, whether it's legal or not. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 12:37:15 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are. |
Actually the breathalyzer sets you up for a different charge. DUI versus DWI. You can be charged with Driving Under the Influence no matter if you are over the legal limit or not, if you are driving badly and the officer thinks it is due to whatever is in your system. On the other hand, no matter how well you are driving, if you have over a certain level of intoxicants in your system Driving While Intoxicated is a crime. They are often charged together, but are separate charges; DUI is observational, DWI is chemical.(I sat on a DUI/DWI jury so I learned more minutia on this than I hope to ever need.)
I expect operating a vehicle for marijuana intoxication will be charged the same way we charge for the various other intoxicants you can't drive while under the influence of;
Sleeping pills such as Sonata, Ambien and Halcion
Stimulants
Sedatives
Prescribed narcotic like Codeine or medicine containing amounts of Codeine
Prescribed pain medicine such as Duragesic, Vicodin and Oxycontin
Common over the counter liquid like NyQuil or TheraFlu
Allergy pills such as Benadryl
Medication to treat diabetes like Amaryl, Insulin and Glucotrol
Not to mention illegal drugs.
None as easy to test for, yet just as dangerous as alcohol in the system. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 11:48:22 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, your are right. Nixon, not Carter. You'll have to forgive me as I hadn't been born yet. ;). But you can't really say on one hand it was more dangerous because of the differential speeds but on the other hand it saved lives.
Well, we have two incubators in WA and AZ and we'll see how it goes. Nobody answered my question of how to enforce DUIs. If the thinking heads of DPC can't come up with the answer, I'm guessing they are in trouble. :) |
it would need to be refined.
right now you are given a field sobriety test and/or a breathalyzer. its pretty obvious in a field test if you are unfit to drive a breathliyer only tells the cops how far over the limit you are.
since the cops wont be chasing around petty criminals then can focus on keeping the roads safe.
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 11:49:23. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 10:56:47 AM · #21 |
Yes, your are right. Nixon, not Carter. You'll have to forgive me as I hadn't been born yet. ;). But you can't really say on one hand it was more dangerous because of the differential speeds but on the other hand it saved lives.
Well, we have two incubators in WA and AZ and we'll see how it goes. Nobody answered my question of how to enforce DUIs. If the thinking heads of DPC can't come up with the answer, I'm guessing they are in trouble. :) |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 02:38:10 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have to say I was only using your words. You said if a prohibition is not working it needs to be eliminated. I fail to see how, taken at face value, that wouldn't apply to speed limits. Feel free to qualify, but then we need to be able to qualify when it comes to pot as well. |
You are confabulating regulation and prohibition. We prohibit things that we all agree are bad, like killing. We regulate things that can be dangerous, like car speed or milk. I would like to move prohibited behaviors that not all of us agree are bad into the regulated behaviors column.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why is this? Why can't the average grower of pot be a middle class guy who does nice things for neighbors? Because it doesn't support the argument. No, the average nice guy smoker is being unfairly made into a pariah by the government while the profits are all going to the evil, kitten-stomping scumbag. |
How on earth can the "niceness" of the users or suppliers influence the argument? Plenty of small growers are decent people, I happen to know 2 people who grow. The fact that they are nice does not change the fact that they don't pay sales tax,engage in an illegal activity for a living and the lack of regulation in the growing creates risks to society that are there only because it is an underground economy, be it damage to National Parks or making it more dangerous to rent out a house. And of course the big suppliers are nice folks like the Sinaloa Cartel .
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, my narrative about the 55mph speed limit is different. It was passed during the oil crisis years of the Carter administration to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and was done away with as soon as reasonable. If your argument was correct, we would expect a clearly detrimental safety record during these years and the reality is the data is unclear. |
When did we stop being dependent on foreign oil again? I must have missed the news. As far as lives saved, they averaged 4,000 fewer fatalities a year "During the first year there was a drop of almost 17 percent in fatalities after the speed laws were reduced to 55 miles per hour," studies showed that the national speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day. The simple fact is, it was a good idea, that reduced our oil consumption and saved lives, yet we got rid of it because we didn't like it and it was routinely ignored. And the Carter administration did not pass it, it began in 1974 under the Nixon administration.
Message edited by author 2013-03-19 02:45:22. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:27:47 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That said, I don't use it, and encourage my daughter not to, not because it does not have any redeeming appeal, but simply because it makes you OK with being bored, sitting around doing nothing. And that is not healthy. |
There. We can agree and end with a handshake. :) |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:25:58 AM · #24 |
I have to say I was only using your words. You said if a prohibition is not working it needs to be eliminated. I fail to see how, taken at face value, that wouldn't apply to speed limits. Feel free to qualify, but then we need to be able to qualify when it comes to pot as well.
I was suddenly struck by something in your argument. It seems you (and others) make the assumption that the consumers are mainly normal Americans who are functioning members of society while the producers are all "criminals" (your word). Why is this? Why can't the average grower of pot be a middle class guy who does nice things for neighbors? Because it doesn't support the argument. No, the average nice guy smoker is being unfairly made into a pariah by the government while the profits are all going to the evil, kitten-stomping scumbag.
BTW, my narrative about the 55mph speed limit is different. It was passed during the oil crisis years of the Carter administration to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and was done away with as soon as reasonable. If your argument was correct, we would expect a clearly detrimental safety record during these years and the reality is the data is unclear. |
|
|
|
03/19/2013 01:17:15 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Alcohol, at the least, can be enjoyed for more than its mind altering properties. Pot, on the other hand, has no other redeeming factor. Perhaps an important difference, and perhaps part of the reason I find no need to legalize it. It has no redeeming benefit to society. |
There are legions who hold a different view. Business Insiders list of reasons why pot is good for you. But you are an MD, you must know about the medical benefits. as for the recreational usage, it is a staple of social interaction in many subcultures from musicians to roofers, and like alcohol, it is seen as a mild relaxant and social lubricator. About 14 million American use it regularly (despite it's illegality), while 15 million Americans now takes at least one drug to treat a psychological disorder, ranging from antidepressants like Prozac to anti-anxiety drugs like Xanax. Is Prozac really all that much better than weed?
That said, I don't use it, and encourage my daughter not to, not because it does not have any redeeming appeal, but simply because it makes you OK with being bored, sitting around doing nothing. And that is not healthy. |
|
