[quote=JoeBob]Intoxication is not a scientific term. It is purely subjective. Fifteen years ago the legal standard was .1. Today it is .08. And if MAAD gets its way, it will soon be .05. There are people you know and see every single day who never get below a .15 who are more "sober" than the soccer mom who drank half a margerita before dinner last night and who wouldn't test out at .01. You can talk about horizontal gaze nystagmus and all that, but they said the same thing about .1 that they now say about .08 and that they will say about .05.
People are individuals. At .10, some people are flying high and some wouldn't even be out of the gate.
No disagreement. However, when speaking in terms of legal implications, .10 is well over the legal limit to operate motor vehicles, and in some states (at least) it can lead to increased charges for any incidents/crimes committed, can it not?
Here it would also get you a public intox charge, and you would no longer be conside red he coherent enough to.make decisions for yourself such as denying medical attention
It would not get you a public intox charge because as you well know, people aren't tested when they are charged with public intox. The cop's statement will read like the public intox statute and that is enough. Why is that? Because there is no BAC standard for public intox. You are intoxicated if the arresting officer says you exhibited certain traits, not if you test out at a certain BAC.
I didn't ask about public intox. I asked about operating motor vehicles and increased charges for any crimes committed. [/quote
Was I responding to you?
I've noticed that you won't, especially on this one.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
