DWI/DUI repeat offenders

[roadman]

and what's wrong with the detention anyway?  I had thought the first thing the officer was supposed to do was to call in someone who is of the local jurisdiction, and let that officer take care of the formal arrest... but as long as that second officer isn't there, it is the first officer's responsibility to keep the suspect detained.  he certainly had probable cause, since the guy had crashed into his car drunk!

it's basically an administrative difference, not grounds for tossing a case. 

See previous comments about lenient judges and defense lawyers.  And this case is also an good example of why we need to reform the appeals process.  But, as someone once said, an innocent person's lawyer will challenge the charges, whereas a guilty person's lawyer will challenge the procedures.

[6a]

Upon appeal, the guy's OUI conviction for this incident was overturned by a higher court, who agreed with the defense argument that, because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and still in uniform, taking the drunk's keys constituted an illegal detainment of a person.

The fuck? This is solid proof of a car culture. You can't drive so you're detained?

and what's wrong with the detention anyway?  I had thought the first thing the officer was supposed to do was to call in someone who is of the local jurisdiction, and let that officer take care of the formal arrest... but as long as that second officer isn't there, it is the first officer's responsibility to keep the suspect detained.  he certainly had probable cause, since the guy had crashed into his car drunk!

it's basically an administrative difference, not grounds for tossing a case. 

We had one of those cases here, don't remember if it was DUI or not, but the court said an officer swears an oath and that oath can't see the city limit.  They are absolutely allowed to detain you here, especially if it's for something that serious.

[Beltway]

Apply "ghaack" to his neck.

[tchafe1978]

As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.

[vdeane]

Those things will also prevent a car from starting if mouthwash, aftershave, or anything else with a scent  is used.  They're unreliable at best.

[cpzilliacus]

As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.

I agree.  I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence.  [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

[cpzilliacus]

Those things will also prevent a car from starting if mouthwash, aftershave, or anything else with a scent  is used.  They're unreliable at best.

Too bad.  If a driver gets caught (and convicted) of driving under the influence, then that driver should have to deal with the inconvenience of an breath test vehicle interlock.

[Jordanah1]

As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.

I agree.  I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence.  [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]

as a wisconsin college student, i would agree!!
the only reason wisconsin actually changed its age from 18 to 21, was because neighboring states had raised it, and 18-20 year olds from those states drove to wisconsin, got drunk, drove back and killed people. the federal government then tied highway funds to the raising of the drinking age, we were blackmailed. but in support of lowering the drinking age, i would have to go to a party to drink, were i dont lknow how i could get home, and i dont know what has been put in the alcohol. but if i could walk into a bar with my friends, and have a responsible sober bartender decide when i have had enough and call a cab for me, it increases saftey while expanding the range of people who can now legaly pay for alcohol, and therefore more people can pay taxes for its sale.

[agentsteel53]

I'd even make the legal drinking age for beer be 16 as it is in Germany.  there, it is graduated based on ABV. 

I don't know the exact cutoff.  I believe it's around 20%, so that most beers and wines can be had by 16 year olds, and liquors are 18.

16 year olds are gonna drink, no matter what.  it's best that it be destigmatized, because the most dangerous aspect of youth drinking is that it is emphasized to be a furtive, rebellious behavior.  if it were as ordinary as having a glass of wine with dinner, just like your parents... well, how cool would that be?  you'd see a whole lot fewer dumbass youths drinking because "it's totally penile, Cousin Broseph.  forsooth!  LOL-I-238!".

[Jordanah1]

well in wisconsin my parents can take me into a bar, and even before i turned 18 they could buy me a drink(not like they did though), perfectly legal (assuming my parents/legal guardian is 21years old). also someone who is married and 21 or older can buy their spouse who is not 21 alcohol in a bar, i think wisconsin is unique with these laws. correct me if im wrong, but wisconsin and louisiana are the only states with exceptions from strict 21 year old drinking age?

[cpzilliacus]

As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.

I agree.  I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence.  [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]

as a wisconsin college student, i would agree!!
the only reason wisconsin actually changed its age from 18 to 21, was because neighboring states had raised it, and 18-20 year olds from those states drove to wisconsin, got drunk, drove back and killed people. the federal government then tied highway funds to the raising of the drinking age, we were blackmailed. but in support of lowering the drinking age, i would have to go to a party to drink, were i dont lknow how i could get home, and i dont know what has been put in the alcohol. but if i could walk into a bar with my friends, and have a responsible sober bartender decide when i have had enough and call a cab for me, it increases saftey while expanding the range of people who can now legaly pay for alcohol, and therefore more people can pay taxes for its sale.

Before the  Reagan  Administration, the age in most states was 18 for beer and wine, 21 for the  harder stuff.

While Reagan was in office, the nice folks at MADD convinced Congress (and Reagan) to enact a law withholding federal highway dollars from states unless they set the drinking age at 21 for all drinks for everyone, claiming it would reduce drunk driving deaths (I did not see the correlation). 

All it did was make persons who are 18 unable to buy a drink in an eating establishment or bar - but most can still get alcohol someplace else if they want it.

I personally find it highly offensive that someone can join the U.S. military and be sent to a shooting war in a place like Afghanistan, yet they cannot go to a base club and have a drink.

One of the claims made was that 18-year-old persons were purchasing alcohol for persons under 18, but if that was a valid  concern, then Sweden has the right idea, which could be emulated in the United States.  Persons between the ages of 18 and 20 cannot make purchases at Systembolaget (literally, the "System Company," the government owned alcohol monopoly, similar to ABC stores in some states), but they can buy alcoholic drinks at licensed bars and restaurants for "on-premises" consumption.

[Beltway]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

Yeah sure uh huh.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.

See thw URL for the rest.

[cpzilliacus]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

Yeah sure uh huh.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.

See thw URL for the rest.

Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.

We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.   

[Beltway]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

Yeah sure uh huh.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.

See thw URL for the rest.

Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.

We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.   

Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.

[Brandon]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

Yeah sure uh huh.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.

See thw URL for the rest.

Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.

We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.   

Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.

Wanna bet.  Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine.  People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI.  Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.

Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect.  Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs.  Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.

[formulanone]

I don't recommend banning any of them for the over-18 crowd, but there's always going to be those who fail to take or do things in moderation (i.e. doing something/anything too much to the point in which it's a hazard).

Please, I've met plenty of dry-for-the-moment drunks who really have their heads on wrong, and they're usually no more superior nor wise than the pot-heads/fiends I know of.

[NE2]

[Beltway]

Wanna bet.  Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine.  People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI.  Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.

Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect.  Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs.  Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.

So we shouldn't ban robbery, burglery, and murder?

Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society.  You won't see them legalized, sorry.

[US71]

I somewhat frequently read of people that have numerous convictions for drunk or impaired driving, yet they keep on driving.

Alice (Do you know who I am) Walton. At least 2 DWI's in Arkansas one fatality (hit a pedestrian)  and 2 in Texas. Still continues to drive, but I guess wealth has it's privileges.

[Jordanah1]

Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana).  [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]

Yeah sure uh huh.  Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.

See thw URL for the rest.

Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.

We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.   

Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.

Wanna bet.  Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine.  People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI.  Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.

Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect.  Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs.  Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.

ya too much alcohol kills brain cells, but alcohol in moderation is one of the best things a person can consume on a daily basis. im not just talking about red wine either, whiskey has even more anti-oxidants than red wine, and it has other things. dark beers in particular are very good for ones health (in moderation of coarse) basicly anything but large abouts of hard liquor are quite good for you, while inhaling smoke of anykind (tobacco, campfire, and yes Marijuana smoke is still smoke that will coat your lungs just the same. all it doesnt have are the major carcinogens of tobacco smoke, though i might argue that the smoke itself is in fact a carcinogen since it can damage the lungs, and help cause cancer)

[cpzilliacus]

Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society.  You won't see them legalized, sorry.

Marihuana, even though it is a vile substance, is not a narcotic, according to scientists.  It is classified as a narcotic because of arbitrary (and mis-informed) decisions by elected officials who want to appear "tough on drugs."

Again, the "destroys brains" argument can (and should) be directed at alcohol as well, yet that's not going to get banned, at least not in the  United States.

[Jordanah1]

also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it. i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.

[vdeane]

Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society.  You won't see them legalized, sorry.

Ditto for tobacco, alcohol, and cigarettes, yet they aren't going to be banned.  The reason is that it's culturally acceptable to consume these drugs but not others.  Completely arbitrary.

also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it. i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.

The same can be said for caffeine and alcohol (and yes, caffeine is just as addicting as many of the harder drugs).  Again, nobody is proposing to ban these.  Your friend made his own choices; the function of the law should not be to protect people from themselves.  In fact, the law probably made his problems worse.  If these drugs were legal, he could get help.  But he can't get help without being arrested and thrown in jail with hardened criminals.  The only reason his formerly bright future is no longer bright is BECAUSE of the war on drugs!

[Jordanah1]

he can go to rehab and not get charged with some sort of crime. being high (unless you are driving or something) isnt against the law, possesion of the illegal substance is what is against the law. if he were to get help, he wouldnt get in trouble, whether he tries to get help while being high or not.  yes caffine is addicting, but not as much as most drugs are (yes i know that marijuana isnt 'addicting', but it seems to me that it is 'extreamly "habbit forming"') caffine also isnt as dangerous as drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

[agentsteel53]

the gateway drug is oxygen

if you quit oxygen cold turkey, I'll guarantee you you won't be trying anything else