Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Driving under the influence~ of coffee!

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
my fellow atsers, I rarely reply to posts since I had my stroke, but I have to try to express myself sometimes please be patient with me as I try to express my opinion which I mam entitled to do It is very difficult to get my thoughts to the keyboard so be patient if u wiull as I start to reply to posts




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
Any drug - legal or not - that impairs your ability behind the wheel [or controls] of a mechanized vehicle - be it lawn mower, tractor, boat with a combustion engine, etc. - anywhere - be it on a roadway, on navigable water, in a field, on your private property, on your rooftop for that matter - is a crime. Well, at least in *my* state, and I believe in others as well though I cannot attest to that as fact.

Being a self-professed caffeine addict, I can state without a moment's doubt that I have been over caffeinated on several occasions, none of which *impaired* my physical or mental faculties. At worst I suffered the shakes, a racing heartbeat, and unsettled digestion. However, if someone were to be *impaired* by such a condition then it *would* be illegal for them to drive -- at least in my state.


Are you in California? Because my friend who just got arrested for a possible DUI told me the same thing.


No, I'm on the "right" coast.



It is preposterous. The entire law needs to be re-stated with specificity. This is why people get wrongfully accused, because laws are too vague.

It should be "any substance that impairs your ability to timely react"
Caffeine does the exact opposite. It magnifies your reaction time.


I would like to clarify and or politely disagree...

No, the laws are not vague at all. There are actually fairly standard measures of what constitutes impaired driving and what does not.

We cannot use "reaction time" as a measure because that would be inherently discriminatory to physically challenged folk and the elderly. Now, we could debate the merits of such discrimination, but that's not within the scope of this topic, unless I'm mistaken.

Impairment is the best measure, and the most FAIR measure. Here's why: An alcoholic will rarely [if ever] have a blood alcohol level under the presumptive legal limit, yet said alcoholic will have many times when they are perfectly capable of operating a car... perfectly. Me, on the other hand, can drink to just under the presumptive limit yet I would be a complete MENACE on the "hiways and byways."

The fact that blood alcohol level is used as a measure at all is mostly due to the political strong arming and pressures applied to our legislators by organizations such as M.A.D.D. And, for the record, I find it *offensive* that *presumptive* number is all that is needed to convict a person, see my alcoholic driver for my reason. That said, I do not fault the police, they do NOT write the laws. However, if they stopped said alcoholic who "smelled of liquor" and didn't perform a breathalizer test, let them go on their way because of no visible signs of impairment, and THEN that driver caused an accident -- even one wholly unrelated to his/her drinking -- and that accident caused the death or "catastrophic injury" of another person or persons, that officer and the department would be sued -- and probably LOSE. The officer would also either be hounded out of his/her job AND would have to live with the psychological guilt [merited or no] the rest of their lives.

Frankly, it's not worth it to let someone showing no signs of impairment off without a breathalizer. And, once they fail a breathalizer... it's a *crime* irrespective of the police officer's personal opinion.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
Any drug - legal or not - that impairs your ability behind the wheel [or controls] of a mechanized vehicle - be it lawn mower, tractor, boat with a combustion engine, etc. - anywhere - be it on a roadway, on navigable water, in a field, on your private property, on your rooftop for that matter - is a crime. Well, at least in *my* state, and I believe in others as well though I cannot attest to that as fact.

Being a self-professed caffeine addict, I can state without a moment's doubt that I have been over caffeinated on several occasions, none of which *impaired* my physical or mental faculties. At worst I suffered the shakes, a racing heartbeat, and unsettled digestion. However, if someone were to be *impaired* by such a condition then it *would* be illegal for them to drive -- at least in my state.


Are you in California? Because my friend who just got arrested for a possible DUI told me the same thing.


No, I'm on the "right" coast.



It is preposterous. The entire law needs to be re-stated with specificity. This is why people get wrongfully accused, because laws are too vague.

It should be "any substance that impairs your ability to timely react"
Caffeine does the exact opposite. It magnifies your reaction time.


I would like to clarify and or politely disagree...

No, the laws are not vague at all. There are actually fairly standard measures of what constitutes impaired driving and what does not.

We cannot use "reaction time" as a measure because that would be inherently discriminatory to physically challenged folk and the elderly. Now, we could debate the merits of such discrimination, but that's not within the scope of this topic, unless I'm mistaken.


How would the physically challenged or elderly be discriminated against, they didn't' "use" anything. Everyone's reaction time is different already anyways. - I was referring to using a "substance" that would decrease your reaction time. - and then using a device to detect some type of "consumption" of it.

If granny is getting pulled over because the patrol thinks they are impaired behind the wheel - DUI or not, she should get off the road.

IDK - when it comes down to it - any form of reckless driving warrants some type of "influence". But the influence that the law states is referring to a drug - that is why if there was a way to test the consumption of drugs that decreased reaction time, it would be more specific.
just my opinion.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Elitists are looking for any way to oppress us lowly citizens! We must defeat them!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

How would the physically challenged or elderly be discriminated against, they didn't' "use" anything. Everyone's reaction time is different already anyways. - I was referring to using a "substance" that would decrease your reaction time. - and then using a device to detect some type of "consumption" of it.


I would not agree. But, that makes sense, that I would not agree that is. What I "consume" is entirely my own business. At least in my opinion... passionately held I might add.

Besides, there are technological limitations that we have consider. It will be some time before a patrol officer could test for any and every substance that might reasonably be presumed to cause impairment, at least in the way that blood alcohol is presumed. And, what if it's a test that would require far more intrusiveness than a breath or a minute or two of a field sobriety test? I don't know about you, but *I* would be right put out about the concept of giving a cop a blood sample.


If granny is getting pulled over because the patrol thinks they are impaired behind the wheel - DUI or not, she should get off the road.


I don't disagree. But, I don't write the laws either.


IDK - when it comes down to it - any form of reckless driving warrants some type of "influence". But the influence that the law states is referring to a drug - that is why if there was a way to test the consumption of drugs that decreased reaction time, it would be more specific.
just my opinion.


See my above. But, there is a provision in my state to ask the person to submit to having a blood sample drawn in the case of suspected drug usage as opposed to alcohol. In my state, the party has a right to refuse that. The party has no right to refuse a breathalizer without legal penalty: their driver's license is summarily suspended upon refusal of a breathalizer. Submitting to that, when requested, is a condition of our driver's license. Blood, on the other hand, rises to a higher level of privacy and self incrimination measures, as it should.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


There are technological problems. And you can't just let it come down to the cop's consent and personal judgement, because everyone will object that.

ahh this is tough!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
It occurs to me, I don't let my cc out of my sight, to prevent theft of my numbers. In the same way, I would not want my blood sample to leave my sight. I don't trust the gang that handles it out of my sight. I have bad balance, all the time, and can't pass a walk the line test. I find a better way to stop their malfeasance, and there previously has been a LOT, is that I simply have a window sticker for prepaid legal on my drivers _ That means if they even write me a ticket, I will be represented in court. They get those as perks, and know it well. It is a hassle to write you up for anything. So just be polite, and they usually won't bother writing you up, deserved or undeserved. I previously had a Porsche, and got pulled over all the time and wriiten up for whatever they could think up, made no difference that I was carefully obeying the law.
I was raised in the church, with respect for LEOs. I had to learn the truth the hard way, thru observation with my own two eyes. I still believe there is an honest cop with integrity, there is an exception to every rule. I just have never encountered him. Same with judges and lawyers. Almost all politicians are lawyers. The 'best' liars get elected president. But they are still better than most royalty. This is the worst country in all the world, with the exception of all the rest. (modified by me).



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
@Gregarious,

I learned fairly quickly after diving head- first into the world of social media that it doesn't take a whole lot of reading the words of someone to know that person



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 
Ah, so now a new chapter in my horror story of LEOs. This young woman I took to her DUI stuff, and I went over about a block, to get breakfast at a coffee shop. Then I drove out, slow about 5mph, onto the onramp of the freeway. Before I could get over in the turn lane, a Mexican woman in a shiney new red truck passed me on the LEFT to get on the ramp. She struck me! There were two SD law gangbangers out raising tax revenue for a broke city by writing ridulous tickets, and I SAW them being unprofessional and livid angry with their 'marks'. So this 'profefessonal' runs up to my window and starts ranting to me. I heard he saw it all, and said 'you saw that? Great! At which he started lambasting me for hitting HER, and was going to write me a ticket because I did not see her speeding past me on the turn lane. My PrePaid is not current. I have a video camera but it needs to be fixed. Or I could tape proof that these men are not really LEOs. I talked to a lawyer, and he laughed at me and refuses to try to get a search warrent for this crooks car trunk. I can not pay the bail or fine. Just don't have it. I get under half the fed poverty level on my SSDI. So I have to go to jail, because I am poor. And I have no right to a defense. And I could not prove with photo evidence and a ton of witnesses, that anyone in their 'gang' is wrong. They are always right, I am always wrong. This is not the America I am proud of.




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


She obviously was lying to you about it being a 'coffee DUI'..

The only way to test for caffeine would be a urine test.
They can't pull you over and test for caffeine.

She was drunk plain and simple.

I would drop this young woman off you're radar she is using you and lying to you.

Not a friend at all.

I can't believe you're driving her around.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Rthaothal]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I imagine that its the same as any other substance, legal or not, that you can get a DUI if you are impaired. Now, being impaired from coffee is another story.

At any rate, I think they may have been thinking along the lines of something like this study: Mixing alcohol and caffeine? You're 4x as likely to DUI






top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join