The fact that alcohol effects individuals differently is hard to translate into law. That fifth beer for the burly bearded biker over there [reeling drunk] can be different for that sparrow thin, grayhaired lady over here who is beating everyone at darts. Acting drunk can be judged idiosyncratically/subjectively, so a numerical number is the most equitable way of legally dealing with the issue of who is impaired… note impaired, not drunk.
Ya wanna drive after a drink or two? Know what the legal limit is in your area and be prepared to pay the consequences of spot checks. Take a cab if you are going to drink. Or identify a designated driver. Personally, I hope that they took wolfman’s license away.
My understanding of entrapment is that the law enforcement officer has offered or enticed the perpetrator in some way. (Of course, any comments from lawyers to correct or clarify this would be most welcome). I don’t feel that applies in this situation.
Maybe this thread belongs in Gen Question, where it can be answered in a strict legal sense.
Of course, it’s already degenerated into a moralizing debate, so maybe Great Debates would be more appropriate.
You’re right, inasmuch as both contribute to careless driving and should be legislated against (and in the UK, for example, the police will stop you for using a non-hands-free mobile while driving).
My reading of this thread is this: if you’re not sure of the limit, or if you’re heading into an area under a different legal authority, ask. If you can’t ask or don’t want to ask, don’t drink.
Regarding the OP, I have some sympathy. wolfman was obviously trying to do the right thing. On the other hand, it is impractical for every state to make sure that any driver potentially passing through knows all of the variations on the law. Maybe it should be a nationally-legislated issue, for clarity’s sake.
Because the OP states that the widely recognized legal BAC limit is .1, wolfman feels it to be shady that you can also be prosecuted for having a lower BAC.
Entrapment? No. Poor communication? Yes.
[rant]
Perhaps, instead of mindlessly slamming wolfman for his post and previous activities, you should consider this:
When there is a widely recognized limit, say .08, many people (not yourself, of course) will try to do the mental gymnastics to try and figure out how many drinks they can have in whatever time period, so that they can get a buzz and still “legally” be able to drive.
It’s a fact, and if you dispute it, you’re not only a fool, but a jackass.
Simple solution: Make people aware of the LOWEST LIMIT. Make it .01%. Don’t play games with semantics. The more different levels of impairment you have, the more loopholes you create. Make a simple, unilateral punishment. If you drink and drive AT ALL, you go down.
It is just that simple.
If you want to call someone an ass for not molding to your view of how we all fit into society, please start a pit thread.
Otherwise, contact your local government. Escalate. Raise hell. Get the word out, and save a few lives. That will do much more good than chastizing wolfman.
We’re all intelligent people here. Please act the part.
[/rant]
I’m sorry, but I don’t think the supposed risk to the public from drunks on bicycles outweighs the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating them, not to mention the cost to the supposed miscreant and his/her family.
In my state it’s .08 I also have no idea how many Buds this level would represent. Do they also set up road block in your state, they do mine. Especially on holiday weekends.
Damn! Reminds me of a jury trial I was on for drunk driving conviction not too long ago. There was one woman on the jury who insisted that if you take 1 sip of alcohol, you should NOT be allowed to drive. A little much, in my mind.
The last I looked, the .1 limit was the equivalent to one drink an hour for an average person. That means you have one small glass of wine, or a beer, or a mixed drink with 1 shot of alcohol, wait an hour, and most people are not impared when it comes to driving.
.5 seems a little low to me. I’m not sure of the physics of this, but it seems a little tough to say if you have 1 drink, you must wait 1.5 or 2 hours before driving.
People should not drive drunk. I don’t think anyone disputes that. But c’mon, at some level you have to say that drinking in moderation and driving is no worse than say, talking on a cel phone, putting on makeup, or shushing your kids in the back. Should it really be illegal to have one or two glasses of wine over a 2-3 hour dinner, then drive home? I don’t think so.
Disclaimer: Please note that I am NOT advocating driving while drunk. It should certainly be illegal, and harshly punished. I am questioning the logic of defining “drunk” as “You’ve had some alcohol in the past five hours.”
From tasting it. I was young too, once. Still am, but not so much that I still care enough about the taste of my own urine to put my tongue in it or anything.
The supposed problem being supposedly addressed by continually toughening the drunk driving laws is the fact that people continue to be arrested for drunk driving, which ignores the fact that if the state continually redefine down the definition of when one is under the influence (ie from “.12” to “.10” to “.08” to “.05” )then of course the number of arrests for the crime will not go down, because the size of net being cast by the police is continually being increased.
wolfman, this is how far I’m with you: If the only time you ever hear about DUI and DWAI is when you’re busted, then that’s crazy. You got a raw deal.
And, personally, I think that .05 is too low to be caught out. I mean, just because the abstemious members of this board think someone’s drunk after one sip doesn’t make it so.
That said, though, c’mon. I assume that living in Colorado you have a Colorado DL. And I also assume that when you got that Colorado DL, you had to take a written test. And on that test, it definitely talks about DUI and DWAI and what the thresholds and limits are for each. So, while I may not remember that I have to stick a red flag on the pole I have poking out of my trunk when it is so many feet long, I am expected to know. And if I get a ticket for it because I don’t care enough to remember the law, then it’s my fault, and I have to take to consequences. Same thing here.
Now, please let me remind you that I hate to do this, and I have absolutely NOTHING against you but I gotta do it.
::Raising the Bullshit Flag::
Negatory, Bandit. Smokey in Colorado don’t make you take no written test when you moves here.
In fact, just three years ago, when I moved here, They checked my eyes, took my Nevada license, and sent me on my way with a brand new Colorado License. The Licensing Office was, in fact, in a booth in the mall.
Mr Cynical is correct, when you move here you never have to take a test.
If anybody gets real bored look around the internet to see how published the .05 law is in Colorado. Even check the state Government web pages. Personally, I have only ever found one indirect mention of it. If I’m just an idiot who doesn’t notice things than so be it. My reaction at the time was the same as if I had been pulled over doing 40mph in a 50mph zone, and the cop took me to jail for “driving too close to the speed limit”.
Im not even going to start on the B.S. of randoms stops in the first place.
P.S. the Colorado legislature is now looking at lowering the limit even lower to .03 or .02 for everybody(again in stealth mode). I’d imagine the reaction is gonna be different when Grandmothers start spending the night in jail for having a glass of wine with dinner.
