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