Why do some countries have stricter penalties for drunk drivers than the US?

[81+]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

 

[Evo]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

Most of those people with multiple DUI's are driving without a license. My understanding is that the penalty for DUI has increased severely, at least it has in my state. I believe that a first offense will result in a two year suspension of your driver's license, even if you have the charges dropped through a diversion program (this was on the radio the other day) and a second offense carries automatic jail time.

This doesn't stop the fools from getting back into a car though.

 

[NeoDevin]

This doesn't stop the fools from getting back into a car though.

Capital punishment for DUI might. (at the very least, it would stop repeat offenders)

 

[Moonbear]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers? These people take lives and disable people with virtual impunity ---- and the rest of us just look the other way. We've all read about people who have 10, 20 or more arrests for DUI and we do nothing. What's wrong with us? In Norway, for instance, one DUI conviction and you loose your driver's license PERMANENTLY. Why are we in the US this way?

Frank

What makes you think they have licenses and haven't spent time in jail? I agree, we should be raising the penalties more and more severely on repeated offenses, but it's not true that nothing is being done. Perhaps the change needs to be that once someone has 2 offenses, any repeated offenses after that (presumably while driving on a suspended license) should include prison time in years equal to the number of repeated offenses (i.e., if you are on your third offense, get 3 years, get out and do it again, get 4 years...at least until they end up with the vehicular manslaughter charges to put them away longer).

 

[Gokul43201]

Jail time of n years is weak. I propose 2^n-1-1 years.

 

[wolram]

What makes you think they have licenses and haven't spent time in jail? I agree, we should be raising the penalties more and more severely on repeated offenses, but it's not true that nothing is being done. Perhaps the change needs to be that once someone has 2 offenses, any repeated offenses after that (presumably while driving on a suspended license) should include prison time in years equal to the number of repeated offenses (i.e., if you are on your third offense, get 3 years, get out and do it again, get 4 years...at least until they end up with the vehicular manslaughter charges to put them away longer).

The only problem with jail time is having the capacity to store all the prisoners, and you tax $s
to keep them, hit them where it hurts with a big stick.

 

[tribdog]

Here in Arizona they just throw you into tent city and feed you green baloney. Costs less than a dollar a day per prisoner.

 

[quadraphonics]

Why do we in the US put up with drunk and/or stoned drivers?

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

 

[Evo]

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

Methods

Twenty-four subjects, equally comprised of men and women, participated in this study. They were allowed to smoke part or all of the THC content in three cigarettes until achieving the desired psychological effect. The only requirement was to smoke for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. When subjects voluntarily stopped smoking, cigarettes were carefully extinguished and retained for subsequent gravimetric estimation of the amount of THC consumed.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours. Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours? I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

 

[tribdog]

yeah, once, back in my college days I stopped at a red light, unfortunately I was still a block away.

 

[Evo]

yeah, once, back in my college days I stopped at a red light, unfortunately I was still a block away.

Yeah, you could always tell (aside from the smell of pot and smoke pouring out of the car) when you saw someone cruising along at 23MPH in a 45 MPH zone, straddling the middle lane and hitting the brakes at totally inappropriate times.

 

[Astronuc]

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours. Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours? I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Not only did they not ingest a lot, the statistical population is only 24 - not sufficient to make a strong case, IMO.

I also knew some people like Evo described. One in particular misjudged a 15 mph curve and took it at > 45 mph. He flipped the car on its side and is slip right between 2 trees. Fortunately, there were not pedestrians in that spot.

PF doesn't condone the use of illegal drugs, and if one does, stay home and don't go out and endanger the public.

My wife used to counsel alcoholics and drug abusers who have been arrested DUI/DWI among other things. Very few were remorseful or contrite about their behavior. Their main concern was to be able to drive again, and many had multiple violations. The legal system was cracking down more so on those who were stoned that those who were intoxicated. I do seem to remember a few cases of drunk drivers killing themselves and/or others - even after multiple violations. There was apparently some leniency because they are frequently the primary income source for a family.

I fully support stiff penalties for people who endanger the lives and welfare of others.

 

[quadraphonics]

According to this "test", they hardly smoked anything at all.

No offence, but you don't know what you're talking about. I guarantee you that 15 minutes with three "marijuana cigarettes" per person will result in the people being about as intoxicated as it is possible to become via smoking marijuana. One "marijuana cigarette" is enough to get 3-4 people stoned, in well under 15 minutes.

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours.

Growing up in the 90's and 00's (a period in which marijuana use amongst under-30 age group is comparable to the 1960's and 1970's rates), I can tell you that that is neither here nor there. It's not like drinking where you do it continuously for hours on end, getting steadily more intoxicated. You're as high as you're going to get within minutes of smoking. Everything after that is just to maintain the initial high.

Ever been in a car with someone that's really stoned that's been smoking for hours?

Yes, many times. I have also been in cars with people that are really stoned, and are smoking while driving. Never once has it come anywhere close to being as frightening as riding with someone who is drunk, or tired, or even with people who are just bad drivers. I can't think of a single time where it's aroused even the slightest anxiety in me. There are people who I would worry more about riding with if they *weren't* stoned, though.

I have. They run red lights and stop signs because they didn't notice them, they run up on the curb and over esplanades, they drive on the wrong side of the street and swerve a lot. They lose track of how fast they are going sometimes speeding while nodding out and other times barely moving at all and not realizing it.

It sounds like your pals consumed more than just marijuana, but I can assure you that this experience is not typical.

 

[Evo]

Quadrphonics, we don't condone or encourage illegal drugs or drug abuse here and such discussions are not allowed. I refer you to the link I posted above.

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Q: How does marijuana affect driving?
A: Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, concentration, coordination, and reaction time. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.


Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine (1). Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink

(8) Liguori, A.; Gatto, C. P.; and Robinson, J. H. Effects of marijuana on equilibrium. psychomotor performance, and simulated driving. Behavioral Pharmacology, 9:599-609, 1998.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg11-12.html#driving

 

[BobG]

I like the interlocks they're starting to use here in Colorado for repeat offenders and/or particularly high BAC. The driver has to pass a breath test to start their car, plus the device pops up with random breath test requirements while driving. They have a few minutes (don't know exactly how many) to pull over and take another breath test or take it at the next red light. They don't actually have to shut the engine off to take the random tests. The random tests just mean the driver can't spoof the system by having someone else take the test for them unless the someone else is dumb enough to ride along with a drunk driver taking their breath tests for them.

If they fail three tests in a row, the car is completely disabled and has to be towed to the installation center so they can unlock it. Plus all of the failures, aborted tests, and passed tests are stored in the device's history and can be used as evidence that the driver violated the terms of their probation, suspended sentence, etc.

The driver rents the interlock device for however long the judge requires them to use the device, so it doesn't cost the taxpayer. The normal time to use the device is around a year to two years.

You would think the cost alone would deter a lot of folks from being repeat offenders. A first offense winds up costing nearly $10,000 by time you take into account increased insurance rates, lawyer fees, and fines. The fact that it doesn't probably indicates how often drivers are able to avoid being pulled over in the first place. Drivers just don't think they're going to get caught.

 

[quadraphonics]

Quadrphonics, we don't condone or encourage illegal drugs or drug abuse here and such discussions are not allowed.

I don't see how presenting accurate information and discouraging mis/disinformation amounts to "condoning or encouraging" anything. In the long run, exaggerating or misrepresenting the dangers of any behavior only makes people more likely to engage in it, and that without accurate information.

I refer you to the link I posted above.

And I again refer you to the first link I posted, which was undertaken exactly to test, scientifically, whether said effects actually translate into increased risks while driving. And it turns out that they do not, validating decades of user experience. The reason is that, unlike with alcohol, stoned drivers remain aware of their impairments and so compensate for them. As has been noted in this thread, the steretypical stoned driver is someone moving suspiciously slowly. Contrast this with the prototypical drunk driver, whose dangers are rather self-evident. Drunk driving produces 10's of thousands of fatalities in the United States every year. Stoned driving, on the other hand? Can anyone even point to a proven fatality? Thus, equating the two is preposterous. Which is exactly why drunk driving is a serious policy priority in most states/municipalities, while stoned driving is not. Other driving behaviors that are significantly riskier than stoned driving: talking on a cell phone, driving while tired, or racing on public streets.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how presenting accurate information and discouraging mis/disinformation amounts to "condoning or encouraging" anything. In the long run, exaggerating or misrepresenting the dangers of any behavior only makes people more likely to engage in it, and that without accurate information.

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects. The information I posted to was ACTUAL reckless drivers, not some controlled study in The Netherlands.

 

[Moonbear]

You should not equate driving stoned with driving drunk:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Tired drivers probably kill many more people each year than stoned drivers do.

Actually, as I read through that article (that one is not from a peer-reviewed source, however), there is a table near the end summarizing the results where very few parameters are different between the drivers who consumed alcohol and those who used marijuana.

Here is a study where that same author is a co-author and published in a peer-reviewed journal (link is to the abstract on the publisher's site; you need a library subscription to view the entire article):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[Moonbear]

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects.

Why would that make it not scientifically valid? If the number of subjects was sufficient to detect significant differences for what they were measuring, then it is valid. I'm more concerned that non-peer-reviewed sources are being posted here when the same authors have perfectly good articles on the subject in peer-reviewed journals. (The one in the link may not have made it through peer review because of the ethical considerations of risking harm to the subjects or other drivers putting them out on real roads with other drivers when their driving impairment was being tested.)

 

[chroot]

Growing up in the 60's and 70's I can tell you that the people that got "stoned" smoked for hours.

Growing up in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that being stoned for hours does not require smoking for hours. Some people can get obliterated in just a couple puffs, which takes no more than a minute. Like alcohol, the effects can last hours. Stop attacking strawmen, Evo. I expect more of you.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Growing up in the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that being stoned for hours does not require smoking for hours. Some people can get obliterated in just a couple puffs, which takes no more than a minute. Like alcohol, the effects can last hours. Stop attacking strawmen, Evo. I expect more of you.

- Warren

An habitual smoker may not have as much effect of a low dose as an occasional smoker either. You're correct to point out there are different effects of the same "dose" of alcohol on individuals, and the same would apply to marijuana smoking. Someone who rarely drinks might get "buzzed" and have impaired driving after one beer, while someone who drinks often might be able to consume 3 or 4 beers before getting to that same level of impairment. But, it wouldn't be a particularly well-controlled study to give everyone different doses.

 

[chroot]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

Oh, I missed her trying to claim that. I agree. The duration really isn't relevant anyway, because the studies are varying the doses of THC, which is the active ingredient, in the marijuana cigarettes anyway. It's sort of a "spiked" dose anyway.

 

[Evo]

Moonbear,

My point is simply that "15 minutes of smoking" is absolutely not "hardly anything at all," as Evo tried to claim.

- Warren

But 15 minutes was the longest, not that everyone had to smoke for 15 minutes and they had a choice of smoking 1-3 joints. As a matter of fact the "test" only had one requirement "The only requirement was to smoke for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.".

I will retract my anecdotal remarks based on my experiences. But if you look at the links I posted, marijuana does not wear off quickly and for a regular user the effects can be accumulative and the effects more pronounced with longer use. So someone smoking for a few minutes and someone that does it on a regular basis won't be the same.

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

 

[Evo]

Why would that make it not scientifically valid?

That was Astonuc I was quoting.

 

[Evo]

Actually, as I read through that article (that one is not from a peer-reviewed source, however), there is a table near the end summarizing the results where very few parameters are different between the drivers who consumed alcohol and those who used marijuana.

Here is a study where that same author is a co-author and published in a peer-reviewed journal (link is to the abstract on the publisher's site; you need a library subscription to view the entire article):
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Can you quote the abstract? The link has expired.

 

[LowlyPion]

I will retract my anecdotal remarks based on my experiences.

Don't tell me you went cross country with Cheech and Chong in an ice cream truck.

 

[quadraphonics]

It was explained to you why your link was not a scientifically valid sample as there were only 24 subjects. The information I posted to was ACTUAL reckless drivers, not some controlled study in The Netherlands.

The information you posted had only 150 drivers, and did not distinguish between "testing positive for" and actually being under the influence of marijuana, nor does it separate those who tested positive for marijuana from those who tested positive for alcohol and other drugs. All it shows is that 50 reckless drivers had smoked marijuana some time in the month prior to their arrest (which is to say that the odds are very good that a given reckless driver is *not* a marijuana user, and overwhelmingly good that said driver is not stoned at the time). Even if these glaring methodological errors were corrected, the result would only show that reckless drivers are slightly more likely to be stoned than the general population, not that stoned drivers are more likely to be reckless. A controlled study (using actual cars and roads and marijuana) is exactly what is called for if you want to determine the risks of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making. Note that if you get 24 people, pump them full of alcohol, and then administer the same driving test, you'll have no trouble seeing the effects. If marijuana is similarly dangerous, why don't we see a similar outcome? I'm not sure why you're unhappy with a study done in the Netherlands, particularly considering that they have a much more rational, science-based approach to marijuana policy, but note that the study in question was commissioned by the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Association):

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Or here's another study from Britain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063

This Canadian study found that marijuana *improved* driving performance in some subjects:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4161/317

Many countries and researchers have gone looking for evidence of marijuana's contribution to driving fatalities, and nobody ever seems to find them. That (and the a-priori requirement that research outcomes should bolster anti-marijuana advocacy) is why you end up with wishy-washy statistics that don't apply to actual driving, don't measure marijuana intoxication and/or don't separate out the effects of other drugs.

Anyway, the point is not that it's a good idea to drive while stoned. It can't help your driving, is illegal, and so should be avoided, particularly if you've had anything to drink. But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.

 

[cristo]

But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.

Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Driving whilst under the influence of marijuana impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Whether one impairs you more than the other is moot.

Oh, and for the record, New Scientist is no longer regarded as a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Evo]

The information you posted had only 150 drivers, and did not distinguish between "testing positive for" and actually being under the influence of marijuana,

Yes it did, 33% of the drivers were on marijuana only.

Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making.

Your example was not peer-reviewed, but she did find the peer-reviewed study by the same author which she said "It makes it much clearer that marijuana DOES impair driving (the one linked in the reported post does too, if you actually read it through) to the same extent as alcohol, and the two combined are worse than either alone."

I also linked to the newer NHTSA study that supercedes yours and the conclusion

Panel’s Assessment of Driving Risks: Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

 

[Moonbear]

Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making.

You did not cite a peer-reviewed source. Please do so.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Or here's another study from Britain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063

Neither of these is peer-reviewed either. Provide the citations to the peer-reviewed article, not the potentially misinterpreted popular press story.

This Canadian study found that marijuana *improved* driving performance in some subjects:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4161/317

Again, do NOT misrepresent the findings of studies. The emphasis should be on some, as the overall conclusion was:

What are the recommendations that emarge from this study? Driving under the influence of marijuana should be avoided as much as should driving under the influence of alcohol.

But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.

Absolutely not. The article I cited, your first link, and even that last article discussed from Science (from 1974) all say they result in similar levels of impairment. You seem to be reading for what you want to find and misrepresenting the findings rather than really reading what the studies are saying.

 

[binzing]

Come to New Mexico...Land of Enchantment, and drunks.

 

[Moonbear]

Can you quote the abstract? The link has expired.

Hmm...it's still working for me. Anyway, here's the abstract:

J. G. Ramaekers *, H. W. J. Robbe, J. F. O'Hanlon 2000 Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance, Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental Volume 15 Issue 7, Pages 551 - 558

Abstract
The objective of the current study was to assess the separate and combined effects of marijuana and alcohol on actual driving performance. Eighteen subjects were treated with drugs and placebo according to a balanced, 6-way, crossover design. On separate evenings they were given weight calibrated 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) doses of 0, 100 and 200 g/kg with and without an alcohol dose sufficient for achieving blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0·04 g/dl while performing a Road Tracking and Car Following Test in normal traffic. Main outcome measures were standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), time driven out of lane (TOL), reaction time (RT) and standard deviation of headway (SDH). Both THC doses alone, and alcohol alone, significantly impaired the subjects performances in both driving tests. Performance deficits were minor after alcohol and moderate after both THC doses. Combining THC with alcohol dramatically impaired driving performance. Alcohol combined with THC 100 and 200 g/kg produced a rise in SDLP the equivalent of that associated with BAC=0·09 and 0·14 g/dl, respectively. Mean TOL rose exponentially with SDLP. Relative to placebo mean RT lengthened by 1·6 s under the combined influence of alcohol and THC 200 g/kg. Changes in SDH ranged between 0·9 and 3·8 m. Low doses of THC moderately impair driving performance when given alone but severely impair driving performance in combination with a low dose of alcohol. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

I'll see if I can get up a link to the site that works for everyone.

(It's also an interesting note that the alcohol doses that impaired driving in this study would be considered well below the legal limit in the US...and probably most other countries. It just goes to show that the impairment begins well before one is considered legally drunk.)

Edit: Does this link work better? http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Earlier this year I left a bar a bit earlier thannormal because my friend was not feeling well. I felt fine and didn't think I was over the limit. I was pulled over for my registration tags (forgot to put the new ones on). I was not speeding, swerving, running lights, or any other dangerous thing. I gave them everything they wanted. When they saw how drunk my friend was they asked if I had been drinking. I said I had a couple of drinks over about three hours. They got me out of the car and had me do the field test, which I passed. They then had me do a breathalizer. I was over by .01%.

I spent the night in jail. My license is suspended for three years. I paid two grand in fines. I have to go through a DUI program that will cost me about $500 more. The program requires that I go to 'group sessions' once a week for two hours for a month and then twice a week for two hours for two months. During that time I also have to go to six AA meetings (for those of you that do not know it is tantamount to making someone go to a church therapy group). All of this I have to do on what ever schedule they have available whether it fits well with mine or not (I have gone to work on only a few hours of sleep almost every time I have attended one of these meetings and it would be near impossible to do these things were I to actually abide the not driving rule).

In June they increased the penalties. First offense is a mandatory thirty days in jail (second is a year). That is to say had I gotten my DUI (by .01%) after June I would have spent thirty days in jail with gangbangers and skinheads. Neonazis that make you be a part of their group or beat the **** out of you since you are obviously a ****** lover if you don't like them.

I went to pick up my roomie from work the other day and was stopped at a check point where I got a ticket for driving on a suspended license. First offense is technically a mandatory jail scentence of at least 10 days (in with those aformentioned gangbangers and neonazis) and the only thing that may save me from it is the overcrowded California prison system. I may only be in for a couple days or not at all depending.

The woman who ran the group meetings I have gone to hardly agrees with the severity of the sentences. Most of the people I have meet only got popped on a minor offense like mine and are more pissed off than anything. One girl is probably going to jail for two weeks because she drove on a suspended license to get asthma medication for her three year old. Most of the people I have met that had severe offenses have lost their jobs or the businesses they owned and were fairly well screwed by the time they got out of jail. Note that if you do not comply with the mandatory DUI program for any reason including not having the money or means to do it you may go back to jail.

So believe me, the sentences are fairly severe. At the same time not many of the people who receive them are going to be very repentant after having their lives nearly, or completely, ruined by one stupid mistake.

 

[quadraphonics]

Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Driving whilst under the influence of marijuana impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Whether one impairs you more than the other is moot.

No it isn't. That's why we have a non-zero BAC for drunk driving laws.

 

[cristo]

So believe me, the sentences are fairly severe.

As well they should be. I have absolutely no time for people who drink and then drive: even if it's "just a couple."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As well they should be. I have absolutely no time for people who drink and then drive: even if it's "just a couple."

And even if their ability to drive is not impaired?

 

[Evo]

Edit: Does this link work better? http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?

Yes, thank you!

 

[Moonbear]

No it isn't. That's why we have a non-zero BAC for drunk driving laws.

No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.

Limit here is .08%. Differences in sentences are based on as little as a .01% difference.

 

[cristo]

And even if their ability to drive is not impaired?

Define "impaired". Just because someone isn't swerving around the road, or hitting stop signs doesn't mean their judgement isn't impaired. When driving a car, the slightest split second in reaction time can be the difference between life and death (for other people on the road: I'm not talking about the driver). Show me proof that the slightest amount of alcohol has absolutely no affect on the reaction times of 100% of drivers, and then I'm willing to believe it.

Sorry, but if you want to drink, get a cab, or have one of your friends drive you or pick you up. Otherwise, drink soft drinks.

 

[Evo]

Earlier this year I left a bar a bit earlier thannormal because my friend was not feeling well. I felt fine and didn't think I was over the limit. I was pulled over for my registration tags (forgot to put the new ones on). I was not speeding, swerving, running lights, or any other dangerous thing. I gave them everything they wanted. When they saw how drunk my friend was they asked if I had been drinking. I said I had a couple of drinks over about three hours. They got me out of the car and had me do the field test, which I passed. They then had me do a breathalizer. I was over by .01%.

I spent the night in jail. My license is suspended for three years. I paid two grand in fines. I have to go through a DUI program that will cost me about $500 more.

Wow, sorry to hear that SA. I knew that DUI was getting more severe, but I had no idea how severe some states were.

My best friend got a DUI 10 years ago for a blood alcohol level of .08. She was about 3 miles from the state line where the legal limit was 1.0, another 3 miles and she would have been well under the legal limit. She hardly ever drinks, she had been to a wedding. After I saw what she had to go through, I will not risk even one drink if I am driving. Back then the suspension was only 1 year for a first offence.

 

[rootX]

No one yet talked about insurance?

I think the best solution is to keep on increasing the insurance.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes it did, 33% of the drivers were on marijuana only.

I don't see that in the information. It says 33% tested positive for marijuana, and 12% tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. The word "only" is not used. We are not told if those are two separate groups, or whether any of the drivers in question tested positive for alcohol or other drugs. And, again, there is a potentially enormous difference between testing positive for marijuana and being "on" marijuana. From your own at the end of the quoted post:

"Interpretation of Urine Test Results: Detection of total THC metabolites in urine, primarily THC-COOH-glucuronide, only indicates prior THC exposure. Detection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment. Published excretion data from controlled clinical studies may provide a reference for evaluating urine cannabinoid concentrations; however, these data are generally reflective of occasional marijuana use rather than heavy, chronic marijuana exposure. "

Also from the same link:

"Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely."

Note that no alcohol manufacturer could get away with labelling a bottle of whiskey with "users should not drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely."

For those of you that missed it, I have never said that marijuana doesn't impair driving ability, only that said impairment is not comparable to being drunk, and should not be treated as such. Studies showing that marijuana causes comparable impairment to blood alcohol levels that are well within legal limits for driving do not go far in refuting this.

 

[binzing]

There's people here (predominantly Native American) that have upwards of 50 DUIs and don't give a damn, they just keep doing it...

 

[quadraphonics]

No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.

If you say so. Regardless, criminal codes throughout the world show a clear trend of increasing penalty with increasing impairment, reflected the increased risk associated with increased impairment. Do you really want to support the assertion that all impairments are morally equal, regardless of severity?

Here's a PowerPoint summary of a large EU study on the effects of different drugs and alcohol, both alone and in combination:

http://www.immortal.or.at/public_downloads/Drug_drinkdriving_Brussels.ppt#282,11,Odds ratios and prevalence data of alcohol-only

Note that they find marijuana to show only a slight danger, less than low doses of alcohol, and drastically less than doses of alcohol which would put you over the legal limit.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Define "impaired". Just because someone isn't swerving around the road, or hitting stop signs doesn't mean their judgement isn't impaired. When driving a car, the slightest split second in reaction time can be the difference between life and death (for other people on the road: I'm not talking about the driver). Show me proof that the slightest amount of alcohol has absolutely no affect on the reaction times of 100% of drivers, and then I'm willing to believe it.

Sorry, but if you want to drink, get a cab, or have one of your friends drive you or pick you up. Otherwise, drink soft drinks.

In my case I was driving fine and passed a field sobriety test but was over the limit. Is BAC a measure of impairment?
I've rarely driven when drinking. I usually wait and shoot some pool for a while to sober up first. While not drinking much to begin with.
I'm not mad or looking for a fight here. I respect your opinion. I'm just giving you the opinion of someone who's going through this for no other reason than .01% difference in a measurement. So maybe I'm just going to be an egg broke to make an omlette. I can (and have to) live with that. I'm just wondering how many people have an even harder time of it in a similar situation. Fortunately I have no kids or anything and my employers are rather sympathetic and forgiving.

Wow, sorry to hear that SA. I knew that DUI was getting more severe, but I had no idea how severe some states were.

My best friend got a DUI 10 years ago for a blood alcohol level of .08. She was about 3 miles from the state line where the legal limit was 1.0, another 3 miles and she would have been well under the legal limit. She hardly ever drinks, she had been to a wedding. After I saw what she had to go through, I will not risk even one drink if I am driving. Back then the suspension was only 1 year for a first offence.

It's no fun. But I'll live. Hopefully if I go to jail it won't be as bad as I have heard. I'm not sure how I would fair having to deal with neonazis. I'd probably want to punch their teeth in.


I just remembered by the way, back to the OP and severity of DUI sentences.
L.A. is cracking down on repeat offenders. They have a special taskforce now that actually go so far as to follow offenders around to see if they are abiding by their sentences. I heard a few cases noted where they picked people up getting into their car after being in the courthouse with a BAC of .2% or higher. Scary people.

 

[MeJennifer]

Talking about impairment, is it true that fighter pilots in the US army get amphetamines ?

 

[quadraphonics]

In my case I was driving fine and passed a field sobriety test but was over the limit. Is BAC a measure of impairment?

No, but the law has a "presumptive rebuttal" clause (at least I think that's what it's called) that let's them presume that you were in fact impaired if your BAC was above a certain threshold, regardless of whether they can demonstrate any actual impairment. Every few years you hear a story on the news about an alcoholic that is easily able to pass a sobriety test, due to the tolerance he's acquired over the years, but then turns out to have some outrageous BAC that would kill a normal person.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, but the law has a "presumptive rebuttal" clause (at least I think that's what it's called) that let's them presume that you were in fact impaired if your BAC was above a certain threshold, regardless of whether they can demonstrate any actual impairment. Every few years you hear a story on the news about an alcoholic that is easily able to pass a sobriety test, due to the tolerance he's acquired over the years, but then turns out to have some outrageous BAC that would kill a normal person.

Yes, I've heard of such things. The Sheriffs told me that they decided to breathalize me anyway because had I later that night gotten into an accident and shown over the limit they would have been held responsible.