DWI and .08 BAC and mandatory blood draw

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by hudson1955, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    The Federal Law that forced States to implement the .08 BAC that confirms DWI should be repealed.
    Why? Because it was enacted without any consideration of the number of alcoholic beverages a restaurant or bar can legally serve a patron, especially a patron that drove to the establishment.

    .08 BAC does not necessarily mean that a driver is impaired as it fails to take into account the differences in each individuals metabolism. To be charged with a DWI a driver should have to show signs of impairment.

    Plus, while drivers can refuse to take an onsite breath test and/or a breath test at the police station, they cannot refuse a blood test. I find this to be extremely disturbing. I have actually followed many drivers who clearly showed signs of impairment and while following them I phoned 911 only to have no officer dispatched and the driver eventually pulling into their driveways. Yet, a driver who only smells of alcohol and who is stopped for a minor traffic violation such as having a head light out can be arrested on the spot for refusing a breath test when they believe the officer has no cause for requesting it.

    I am against drunk driving, but I believe the law should limit the number of drinks an establishment can serve within l hour. I am not against drinking and then driving when the driver is able to drive without showing signs of impairment, no matter what their BAC.

    And, if the Federal Goverment really wants to stop accidents caused by drunk drivers then they should not allow a patron to be served more than 2 drinks within one hour and should require they take a BAC test before being allowed to leave the establishment. Naturally that is not going to happen.

    Yet, the Federal Government continues to make the use of Marijuana illegal when they cannot even produce one statistic on the number of traffic accidents caused by a driver being under the influence of Marijuana or for that matter the number of assualts and violent crimes caused by a marijuana use. IMO Marijuana is a safer drug than alcohol and poses a lesser threat to drivers and the public at large. With the inception of privately run Prisons that are paid based on the number of individuals imprisoned it is no wonder that the Government refuses to legalize Marijuana eventhough it is less detrimental to a persons overall health and a lesser threat to the public. Requiring tax payers to pay for the daily care of persons in jails and prisons for possessing Marijuana or being under the influence of Marijuana is a totally waste of money, not to mention destroying the individuals future for an act less objectionable than drinking alcohol and less detrimental to their health than smoking cigarrettes.

    What a crock!

    As a Centrist, quasi libertarian; I say marijuana should be legalized and to not legalize it is plain hypocritical on the part of our Federal Government.
     
  2. sparky2

    sparky2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dave,

    Come on man.
    Really?

    Is this what it has come down to now?

    :-|
     
  3. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
     

Share This Page