Gotcha, you damn drunk driver

Eric Baber wrote:

> I've often wondered whether there's any way for testing for drugs (legal or
> illegal) on the spot? If a policeman suspects a driver is under some form of
> narcotic influence, what do they do - haul them in? Can they just do that or
> do they have to give them some sort of test first? I can imagine that quite
> a few kids now drive while drugged rather than drunk, and that might be more
> difficult to determine or prove on the spot.
>
> Eric

It is much more difficult to determine, because there is not a
breathalyser device for these drugs like there is for the drug alcohol.
(Alcohol is an intoxicating drug in case anyone is fooling themselves
and feel morally superior to "drug users" when they drink)

The officer has to rely on their own personal observations of smells,
dilated eyes, red eyes, slurred speech or continuous rapid speech, all
of which can be caused by other factors as well except perhaps the smell
if someone has a blunt of the chronic burning in the back seat.

If you fail their sobriety test and they suspect it is for illegal or
prescription drugs rather than alcohol, what happens next varies from
country to country and probably from state to state here.
I do know a person who was pulled over while smoking and was only
charged with possession, not with driving under the influence, but this
was years ago, things may have changed.

Marijuana can stay in your system for a month or longer, so a person who
has used it will show up positive for long after the intoxicating
effects have worn off. Most illegal drugs work their way out of
detectable levels in your system within 3 days or so.
At least that is what I heard.... ;-)

I worked at a police supply store for a while and one thing that they
sold was packets of moist wipes that detect cocaine residue. They rub
these over your driver's license back at the car if they are suspicious
because so many people use their license for crushing up their nose
candy and/or splitting it into lines.

The semi-truckers who have been up for three days on meth making their
runs scare me more than kids.
I don't think that there are a lot more kids driving drugged than there
used to be, unless you count the legal prescription drugs that our
pharmaceutical industry is shoving down their throats at the first sign
of unhappiness at anything.

Pat

Eric Baber wrote:

> Fair enough; you're at liberty to ignore this thread. It's very neatly
> self-contained to easy enough to ignore.
>
> Eric


Exactly. "I hate this thread, so, so, I'm going to read the whole
thing". Makes sense.

Eric hasn't used any profanity that I remember. I have, and if you don't
like it, then just drop me into your ****ing killfile and you won't
see those awful words anymore.
Ron, you have done nothing with your comments but to help continue this
thread. A thread, like a troll, can only be killed by starving it, not
by complaining about it. Are you a newbie not to realize this?

Miata discussion on this newsgroup has been dying off for a long time
now. Maybe half the posts are on-topic, and almost everyone here is
guilty of participating in completely off-topic discussions.

Pat

> More parts of the the story yet undisclosed? Do you think that you are
> the only one who has dealt with a psycho woman? I was married to one.
> Again, that strong smell of excrement drifts in from your direction.

Pat, it was irrelevant to the discussion until for either misdirection or
lack of worthwhile response you are bringing it up. Do you think we should
start digging into your marriage, just to be sure that your opinion of
psycho is adequate to validate your opinions on the personal events I
related, at your request I might add? Or should I start accusing you of
BSing about your marriage just to give yourself something to oppose me with?
What's the point in that kind of exchange?

> ( Someone else getting their law)

> Nope, just like I don't get what I want. Most of us would like to play
> God, but only a few people get to.
> Like I said before, this is the opinion of one individual, I do not
> speak for others. Nothing is going to change because of me and I know
this.

Ok, that's a different place from where you started and my point is made.
And (in case anyone is wondering about relevance to the group) this is why
we are not facing lengthy license suspensions for minor speed infractions,
based on one individuals strong opinion. Blanket harsh punishments can't be
applied fairly, so the law tends to not have them.

Thank you all for your tolerance, my apologies to those who found the thread
bothersome.

miker

> Some people just make me sick. Miker, are ya an avid drunk driver buddy?
> Feelin' a little guilty about it? Clean it up before you become a
statistic.

Man, I hope you apply more perception to your driving than you do to your
reading.

miker

<snip>

> I worked at a police supply store for a while and one thing that they sold
> was packets of moist wipes that detect cocaine residue. They rub these
> over your driver's license back at the car if they are suspicious because
> so many people use their license for crushing up their nose candy and/or
> splitting it into lines.

Hah, nice one :-) So the officers don't even have to ask them for their
credit cards to test them, that's very accommodating of the snorters.

> The semi-truckers who have been up for three days on meth making their
> runs scare me more than kids.

Which reminds me of a cross-country journey in Thailand once... bus...
bullet-holes.... Some other time and thread maybe.

> I don't think that there are a lot more kids driving drugged than there
> used to be

In the UK I'd bet there are loads of people driving on drugs instead of
drink because they think (rightfully or not, I have no idea) that they're
less likely to be caught and prosecuted. The drink driving campaigns here
seem to have been moderately effective, but the use of illegal drugs is
generally on the increase so I reckon there's more DUI of drugs going on.
That'll be the next challenge for the police I guess.

Eric

miker wrote:

> Pat, it was irrelevant to the discussion until for either misdirection or
> lack of worthwhile response you are bringing it up. Do you think we should
> start digging into your marriage, just to be sure that your opinion of
> psycho is adequate to validate your opinions on the personal events I
> related, at your request I might add? Or should I start accusing you of
> BSing about your marriage just to give yourself something to oppose me with?
> What's the point in that kind of exchange?

There is no purpose to any of this. You felt a need to respond to a
person's opinion on the law because what I want would have taken your
license away since you were stupid anough to drive after drinking your drug.
Now you need a device to make sure you stay under the BAL, nice.

You can dig into my marriage all that you want, I have nothing to hide
and no lies to tell. I do have some nice physical scars that I can show
you. Is that psycho enough for you?
I also know that when someone says that the only recourse was to give
the girl a ride home after drinking because it was impossible to take
her keys away, that I am hearing a load of BS.

> Ok, that's a different place from where you started and my point is made.
> And (in case anyone is wondering about relevance to the group) this is why
> we are not facing lengthy license suspensions for minor speed infractions,
> based on one individuals strong opinion. Blanket harsh punishments can't be
> applied fairly, so the law tends to not have them.

Nobody has made a single point except that we are not ever going to
agree on this.
Have fun blowing into your breathalyser since you need one to figure out
if it is ok to drive ot not.....

> Thank you all for your tolerance, my apologies to those who found the thread
> bothersome.
>
> miker

They bitch and bitch, yet they continue to read and read. We are not all
Americans here, but that is very much the American way.

Pat

> Now you need a device to make sure you stay under the BAL, nice.

Pat, do you remember me saying I agree with you on drunk driving, I agree
with you on not drinking at all and driving, and I agree that harsher
punishments are needed (just not to the extent you are advocating)? If you
don't remember, check the archive and then apologize if you're honest
enough.

Likewise, I have never said I used a device to test myself. I don't drink
and drive, remember? If you don't remember, check the archive and then
apologize if you're honest enough.

> I have nothing to hide and no lies to tell.

Me either, and you've done nothing but accuse me of lying. Is that the
treatment you want?

> Nobody has made a single point except that we are not ever going to
> agree on this.

We *did* agree, twice. We agree that drunk driving is bad and that current
penalties should be harsher. And you said you understood you weren't going
to get your way and it was just your opinion, and wasn't going to be law. Do
you need the quote from the archive? Don't forget, we are NOT arguing about
whether drunk driving is ok or not, we are discussing whether the law should
provide blanket harsh punishments for first offenses for violations of the
motor vehicle laws.

> Have fun blowing into your breathalyser since you need one to figure out
> if it is ok to drive ot not.....

See above. I don't. You keep saying that because you have no reasonable
response except to continue being the kind of person you are.

miker

miker wrote:
>>Now you need a device to make sure you stay under the BAL, nice.
>
>
> Pat, do you remember me saying I agree with you on drunk driving, I agree
> with you on not drinking at all and driving, and I agree that harsher
> punishments are needed (just not to the extent you are advocating)? If you
> don't remember, check the archive and then apologize if you're honest
> enough.
>
> Likewise, I have never said I used a device to test myself. I don't drink
> and drive, remember? If you don't remember, check the archive and then
> apologize if you're honest enough.
>
>
>>I have nothing to hide and no lies to tell.
>
>
> Me either, and you've done nothing but accuse me of lying. Is that the
> treatment you want?
>
>
>>Nobody has made a single point except that we are not ever going to
>>agree on this.
>
>
> We *did* agree, twice. We agree that drunk driving is bad and that current
> penalties should be harsher. And you said you understood you weren't going
> to get your way and it was just your opinion, and wasn't going to be law. Do
> you need the quote from the archive? Don't forget, we are NOT arguing about
> whether drunk driving is ok or not, we are discussing whether the law should
> provide blanket harsh punishments for first offenses for violations of the
> motor vehicle laws.
>
>
>>Have fun blowing into your breathalyser since you need one to figure out
>>if it is ok to drive ot not.....
>
>
> See above. I don't. You keep saying that because you have no reasonable
> response except to continue being the kind of person you are.
>
> miker

Ok Miker, I am sorry. Peace and love and all of that. ;-)

Over and out....

Pat

> Ok Miker, I am sorry. Peace and love and all of that. ;-)
>
> Over and out....

Thank you. BTW, you following that guy to get him nabbed is just what I
would have done. Too many people would have just shook their head and
continued on their way.

miker

miker wrote:

> Thank you. BTW, you following that guy to get him nabbed is just what I
> would have done. Too many people would have just shook their head and
> continued on their way.
>
> miker

Thank you as well.
Don't we both kayak? I'm still not married, Miker, the possibilities are
endless.... ;-)

Pat