What's new
By:

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

And while we're at it, 0.08% BAC is pretty damn low. Most people at 0.08% will show almost no signs of being drunk. We've worked our way down to 0.08% as a legal limit due to the efforts of groups like MADD and a general intolerance of ANY level of impairment due to alcohol. If I knew the driver next to me was at 0.09% BAC I wouldn't be too concerned unless they were also driving like a jack-***. I'm guessing 0.05% is the threshold when a person starts to feel any effects of alcohol at all and reaction time starts to slip. Keep in mind that different people have different reaction times going in, so a person legally drunk at 0.081% might very well still have reaction times better than your average driver, albeit lower than their normal reaction time.

Let's keep in mind that when we're talking about the lower end of the legal limit we're talking about very minor levels of impairment.
 
Gameface said:
And while we're at it, 0.08% BAC is pretty damn low. Most people at 0.08% will show almost no signs of being drunk. We've worked our way down to 0.08% as a legal limit due to the efforts of groups like MADD and a general intolerance of ANY level of impairment due to alcohol. If I knew the driver next to me was at 0.09% BAC I wouldn't be too concerned unless they were also driving like a jack-***. I'm guessing 0.05% is the threshold when a person starts to feel any effects of alcohol at all and reaction time starts to slip. Keep in mind that different people have different reaction times going in, so a person legally drunk at 0.081% might very well still have reaction times better than your average driver, albeit lower than their normal reaction time.

Let's keep in mind that when we're talking about the lower end of the legal limit we're talking about very minor levels of impairment.
Click to expand...
I don't think that would hold up in court, mush for brains!:D
 
I don't get out much, but I can say with certainty that there is at least one person I'd rather be high than not when I'm a passenger in their car.

From tail-gating, road rage *** hole to 10 under the limit, deferential smiley guy.
 
GVC said:
You wouldn't go to court if you blew a .05. This really isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've brought up alcohol this whole time. The point is the study says your driving is impaired. Kill someone while behind the wheel and blood test at the threshold they suggest and no question you are in big trouble.
 
GVC said:
If you're driving with a BAC of .05%, you're probably not swerving all over the road and running people over. Yes, you'll be slower to react to things, but if you get pulled over for some offense not directly linked to driving like an idiot (say, a dead headlight or not signalling on a turn or something), and the officer has cause to administer a breathalizer test (I don't know what the legal standards are), but you only blow a .05, you're not going to face any criminal penalties.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?
Click to expand...
Sure, I understand that point fine. But it's not what I've been arguing at all.
 
CONAN said:
I don't think I've brought up alcohol this whole time. The point is the study says your driving is impaired. Kill someone while behind the wheel and blood test at the threshold they suggest and no question you are in big trouble.
Click to expand...
Of course you would be in big trouble right now, any amount is illegal.

Kill someone behind the wheel and blow a .05 on an alcohol test and you won't be in any more trouble than you would have been if you had blown a 0.0. So when this test says they are comparing it to 0.05% on an alcohol test, they are saying the driver is not impaired.
 
CONAN said:
I don't think I've brought up alcohol this whole time. The point is the study says your driving is impaired. Kill someone while behind the wheel and blood test at the threshold they suggest and no question you are in big trouble.
Click to expand...
What the ****? The whole study is comparing impairment due to THC v. alcohol. If you get pulled over for dubious reasons and test out at the zero per se limit, you won't see a court room. Holy ****, dude, keep back-peddling.
 
CONAN said:
If their driving is impaired I don't see how that would hold up in court.
Click to expand...
No mention of killing someone. You know, I'm pretty sure you haven't mentioned specific cases like that anywhere in this thread.
 
A. Driving Under the Influence (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44)
As noted in the definition section, Utah law prohibits any person from “[operating] or [being] in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state if the person:

1) has enough alcohol in the body that a test administered at some point after the operation or physical control of the vehicle reveals a BAC of .08 or greater;

2) is under the influence of any drug or alcohol or a combination of both such that the person is incapable of safely operating the vehicle; or

3)has a BAC of .08 or greater at the time of operation or physical control of the vehicle.

In other words, a person whose BAC is or exceeds .08 may not operate a vehicle or be in control of a vehicle under any circumstance. Even with a BAC less than .08, a person may not operate or be in control of a vehicle if drugs or alcohol prevent the person from safely operating the vehicle.
Click to expand...
So, yes you can get a DUI without blowing a .05, but you'd have to be an idiot. If you were to be found guilty of a DUI AND were guilty of the relevant aggravating factors, you'd presumably be in more trouble than someone who ran someone over without any alcohol in their system.

Pretty unlikely, of course.
 
GVC said:
So, yes you can get a DUI without blowing a .05, but you'd have to be an idiot. If you were to be found guilty of a DUI AND were guilty of the relevant aggravating factors, you'd presumably be in more trouble than someone who ran someone over without any alcohol in their system.

Pretty unlikely, of course.
Click to expand...
I think they just threw that in there to mean that if you have drugs in your system, that can get you a DUI.

I think they would have a hard time proving the alcohol is what caused you to drive like a jackass if you blew a .05% on the test. If you blew a .05% and had prescription pain meds in your system too though, that's another story.

I'm pretty sure even the most incompetent lawyers out there would be able to establish reasonable doubt that the alcohol caused the bad driving if you only blew .05%, and I would be surprised if they have ever even tried to charge anyone with a DUI that was below .08 with no other drugs in their system and were of legal age.

If that bolded section really meant that people could get a DUI without being at .08 and no other drugs, then the other 2 sections describing the .08 limit would not be relevant (no need to establish a limit if one isn't needed).
 
SaltyDawg said:
If that bolded section really meant that people could get a DUI without being at .08 and no other drugs, then the other 2 sections describing the .08 limit would not be relevant (no need to establish a limit if one isn't needed).
Click to expand...
They'd still be relevant if you were pulled over for a dead headlight and blew a .09, since you presumably hadn't necessarily shown that you were incapable of safely operating the vehicle.
 
I have little experience with all this because I don't drink, and the only time I've been pulled over since about 2003 was for absolutely nothing (unfortunately, that's reason enough for Homeland Security to harass, frisk and thoroughly search anyone at all...which is what I got to go through for about an hour in the spring).
 
GVC said:
No mention of killing someone. You know, I'm pretty sure you haven't mentioned specific cases like that anywhere in this thread.
Click to expand...
Didn't think I needed to. WTF are we talking about if not the danger that is someone high behind the wheel?
 
CONAN said:
Didn't think I needed to. WTF are we talking about if not the danger that is someone high behind the wheel?
Click to expand...
We were talking about a specific recommendation of a zero per se limit on THC levels while driving. If you get pulled over for some reason (short of hurting someone or causing property damage), they don't recommend criminal penalties for people who test out (if a test is legal AND performed) at the levels we've been discussing.

This isn't rocket science. We've moved on from the simple discussion of whether or not THC impairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top