Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 11:53:46 AMQuote from: Curly on August 15, 2014, 11:44:39 AMI really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal. It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute. Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? Of course we don't want drunks handling firearms. However, the verbiage about testing for marijuana is tough. I'm unsure that the blood test they use can accurately determine the intoxication of the person being tested. That's one. Second is that intoxication is a judgement call for the officer and eventually, the prosecutor. I've been told that something like 75% of people convicted of driving under the influence in WA blew less than .08 BAC. They were convicted on results from field sobriety tests, the testimony of the arresting officer, and the statements made at the scene by the accused. I'm concerned that we'd be creating yet another law used to trap people. I'm undecided on this so far.Good points. One thing I don't agree with is the officer deciding if a person is impaired enough to be considered legally drunk. I think if there is a BAC limit (like 0.08) then that should be the line; move it to 0.06 or 0.05 if necessary, but use an actual value instead of letting the officer decide.20 years or so ago, back when the BAC limit was 0.10, I had to go get my roomate from the police station where he had been taken for DWI. He blew well below the legal limit (0.06 if I remember right), but the officer still arrested him because he didn't like how he performed on the sobriety tests. Thing is, I was with my roommate not too long before we both left to go home and he was definitely not drunk. So, based on that experience, I've not had much faith in allowing the officer to make the determination of if someone should be considered drunk enough to be illegal to drive.Yeah, marijuana testing I have no clue about. That does seem like a tough one.
Quote from: Curly on August 15, 2014, 11:44:39 AMI really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal. It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute. Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted? Of course we don't want drunks handling firearms. However, the verbiage about testing for marijuana is tough. I'm unsure that the blood test they use can accurately determine the intoxication of the person being tested. That's one. Second is that intoxication is a judgement call for the officer and eventually, the prosecutor. I've been told that something like 75% of people convicted of driving under the influence in WA blew less than .08 BAC. They were convicted on results from field sobriety tests, the testimony of the arresting officer, and the statements made at the scene by the accused. I'm concerned that we'd be creating yet another law used to trap people. I'm undecided on this so far.
I really don't see the problem some people are having with the proposal. It seems like it is just allowing officers to use breathalyzers so that prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute. Don't we want the drunk guys out there hunting to be prosecuted?
So currently the legal limit to drive is .08 unless you have a CDL then the limit is .04.
Many, many years ago in Texas, I went out with a couple buddies to have a few beers. I had been working a ton of hours and after 1 beer on a hot day I couldn't stay awake. I took a short nap in the car which turned into about a 4 hr nap. My buddies had been drinking and got pulled over. I got arrested for public intoxication because the LEO said I had slurred speech when he woke me up. 1 beer 4-5 hrs earlier??? I ended up with the same fines and a nite in jail as my buddies. Asumptions were made with no tests done.
