Tuesday, December 7, 2010

How high is too high for driving? Driving while stoned

Even for those who believe marijuana has useful medical applications, we hope there is no debate about driving while stoned.

But where do you draw the line?

Colorado lawmakers next month should take up a plan to set safe limits of marijuana use for drivers.
Certainly drivers can't be under the influence, but is it OK to have some pot in your system, just as the law allows drivers to have some alcohol in their system so long as it doesn't surpass certain levels?
We think some sort of demarcation is smart and necessary in a state that allows tens of thousands of its residents to legally use marijuana as therapy. Right now, current state law amounts to a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to pot's psychoactive component in the bloodstream.

The General Assembly's criminal and juvenile justice commission is recommending that Colorado law allow for traces of THC — the psychoactive component of marijuana — in the blood. As with alcohol, the law would delineate when too much of the substance is present to allow for safe driving.

"It will bring some clarity to the issue of whether you are or are not impaired under the influence of marijuana," state Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, told The Denver Post's John Ingold.
The commission's recommendation would allow a driver to have up to 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood, but even some members of the commission question that limit. Frequent smokers — like the medical marijuana users the law is poised to protect — have higher tolerances to the drug, making the 5 nanogram-limit potentially too restrictive.

We admit that we aren't pot scientists, so we don't know what to make of the proposal. But Ingold cites accident figures that underscore our concern that some limit be set.

In 2009, THC or other forms of marijuana were found in drivers killed in one in five accidents that involved drugs nationally, according to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. In Colorado, THC or other forms of marijuana showed up in the bloodstreams of 26 of 312 drivers killed that year.

As has often been the case since the advent of Colorado's medical marijuana laws, lawmakers must break relatively new ground. Beyond states with zero-tolerance policies, only a few, including Pennsylvania, use the 5 nanogram limit.

Sean McAllister, an attorney involved in the commission's work, questions the 5 nanogram limit. But he also recommends that medical marijuana users not use the drug for four hours prior to driving.
As with some prescription medications, medical marijuana is just too potent for safe driving.
"No responsible advocate of legalization believes that people should be driving high," McAllister said.
We hope the commission's recommendations find their way into a smart piece of legislation next session that not only addresses the rights of medical marijuana patients but the overall safety of motorists.
resource: The Denver Post

Friday, October 22, 2010

Dixie Elixirs & Medibles — the patient’s choice for alternative MMJ treatment.

 IS THIS FOR REAL?

Dixie Elixirs – the patient’s choice for alternative MMJ treatment.

Convenient, discreet and potent
Home grown in Colorado, Dixie Elixirs refreshing carbonated beverage provides an
organic alternative for patients seeking a refreshing but equally potent alternative to
smoke and tinctures, or carb and calorie loaded edibles.
Introduce your patients to an elevated MMJ experience
Formulated from a carefully cultivated blend of the finest Sativa-dominant buds,
Dixie Elixirs delivers the potency that patients want in a soothing, sparkling beverage.
  • Colorado-grown to complement the Rocky Mountain lifestyle
  • Easy to enjoy with discretion
  • Consistently delicious, reliably potent
  • Relieves a wide range of symptoms
  • Use alone or to increase and enhance other MMJ medication
  • Carbonation delivers relief faster
  • 12-ounce recyclable bottles in seven refreshing flavors: lemonade, sweet tea, pink lemonade, strawberry, orange, grape and root beer
  • Also available in extra-strength 1-ounce watermelon and spearmint “dew drop” bottles

TO ORDER: 1-866-928-1623 or Email Us

 

http://dixieelixirs.com/

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Are Parents Liable for Underage Childrens DUI?


Driving under the influence (DUI) has become a national problem that various states have tried to address. Many states particularly go after drunken drivers who are under-aged and have enacted zero tolerance laws to combat the problem. In zero tolerance states, the legal BAC for under 21 drivers may be as low as .00. Parents of under-aged DUI drivers may also face penalties under certain circumstances.

Drinking and Driving Under 21

The legal age for drinking in most states is 21. These same states legally permit drivers to be as young as 16. Intoxication and youth can often be a deadly combination when it comes to operating motor vehicles. Although under-aged drivers represent approximately six percent of licensed drivers in the U.S., these same drivers cause a disproportionate of car accidents and fatalities which are often fueled by alcohol consumption.

BAC Limits

In 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring most states to set their BAC limit at 0.8 percent as the presumptive level of intoxication. This basically means that a driver whose BAC limit is .08 percent or above is presumed to be intoxicated, thus violating any state DUI or DWI laws. Most states have since implemented the requested BAC limit for per se enforcement; however, some states penalize DUI no matter the BAC.

Some states impose lower BAC for drivers under 21 years of age. Therefore, teen-aged drivers do not have to reach the 0.8 level to violate state DUI laws.

Zero Tolerance and Implied Consent Laws

In zero tolerance states, drivers under 21 years of age are prohibited from drinking and driving. Driving in this case means operating any motor vehicle whether it is a car, a motorcycle, a motor boat, or in some cases, a motor operated lawn mower. Whereas the average BAC limit for suspected drunk drivers is .08 percent, some states set the BAC limit as low as .00 or .02. A .00 BAC means that absolutely no trace of alcohol should be in the blood. Even one drink would be a violation.

Some zero tolerance states also have implied consent laws. Implied consent basically means that by operating a motor vehicle such as a car, a driver gives implied consent to any required blood alcohol testing to determine intoxication levels. In this case, an under-aged driver is legally required to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test.

Zero tolerance laws may carry enhanced penalties that include administrative penalties such as license suspension or revocation; and criminal penalties such as actual jail time, accompanying fines and/or community service. If the violation occurs on school property, the violator may also be subject to school suspension. Repeat violations can result in a permanent revocation of the violator's license.

Parental Liability

In some zero tolerance states, parents may be held liable if their under-aged child gets a DUI and the parents provided the alcohol or intoxicating substance (in cases such as hosting an under-aged party). Parental liability may arise simply for allowing the under-aged driver use of the family car. Under the theory of "negligent entrustment" parents may be liable for an under-aged DUI driver if the parents allowed the use of the car when they knew or had reason to know their child had a history of alcohol or drug problems or prior DUIs.

Where states allow parental liability for their child's DUI, the parents may be subject to civil lawsuits or criminal penalties if they provided the alcohol.

Talk with an Attorney

If your child has been charged with a DUI, you may also be liable if you supplied the alcohol or entrusted your car when you had reason to suspect your child of drinking. Talk with an attorney to protect against possible penalties.
resource:  http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/resources/dui-dwi/dui-laws-penalties/can-i-be-liable-if-my-
underage-child-gets-a-dui

Monday, October 18, 2010

Marijuana DUI Charges: What to Expect

Despite the fact that there is no accurate chemical test to prove that you were under the influence of marijuana while driving, you can still be accused of a marijuana DUI. When this occurs, the penalties are similar to those of a DUI involving alcohol. They vary from state to state, but in most cases, it is a misdemeanor charge with several possible penalties.

What To Expect When You Are Pulled Over

In most cases, you will be initially targeted by police purely by your driving pattern, just like with a DUI that involves alcohol. Another factor that will enter into the decision to charge you with marijuana DUI is your appearance, such as whether you have bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, an abnormally relaxed attitude, and the smell of marijuana.

You will likely be given a field sobriety test, and will also need to submit to a chemical test using either urine or blood. However, such tests can only reveal whether you have used marijuana in the recent past since it stays in your system for days. Therefore, all of these factors must be used together in order to accuse you of marijuana DUI since a chemical test alone does not usually mean much in a court of law.

Penalties for Marijuana DUI

The consequences of receiving a marijuana DUI may sound familiar, as they are nearly the same as if you had received a DUI involving alcohol. You will likely lose your driver's license right away, typically for a period of six months to a year for a first time offense. This time period varies by state, however. Jail time is also a very real consequence, as is probation.

Of course, you will be charged with fines, which also tend to vary by state. Not only will you need to spend a lot of money when you get a marijuana DUI, but you can expect to use up your free time, as well. You may be requested to complete some hours of community service and attend classes that deal with drug abuse issues.
Contact a Lawyer To Fight Marijuana DUI Charges

If you have received a marijuana DUI, it is important to contact a lawyer right away. In many cases, the lack of accurate chemical testing for this drug may be beneficial to you, especially if it is the main evidence that the police officers have against you. Finding a good lawyer to defend you can mean the difference between acquiring marijuana DUI charges and keeping your record clean.
resource:  http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/resources/dui-dwi/dui-laws-penalties/facing-marijuana-dui-charges-
what-expect

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Under the Influence of Prescription Drugs Hard to Prove

As illegal prescription drug use soars, the number of cases of driving under the influence in which the substance is a prescription drug rather than alcohol is rising steadily, authorities say.

But prosecuting and obtaining convictions against suspects charged with DUI involving prescription drugs can be a challenge.

Many states, including Florida, do not require a test to quantify the amount of drugs in a person's body in a DUI case, and impairment is difficult to prove.

"What we and other states have run into historically is that there is a well-developed system to quantify the amount of alcohol in the human body," said Rob Parker, a Brevard County, Fla., prosecutor.

However, "when you have oxycodone or an opiate, we do not have a well-developed way to quantify the amount of drugs so that a jury can then compare that value to a standard established as an unlawful when operating an automobile."

Parker prosecuted a man charged with four counts of DUI after a crash in Melbourne in 2007. Minutes after the accident, a police officer observed that the 33-year-old driver's eyes were bloodshot, his eyelids droopy and his speech mumbled. A blood sample from the driver tested positive for the presence of prescription drugs.

"The jury heard all of that and could not conclude that he was DUI with drugs beyond reasonable doubt," Parker said.

The jury acquitted the driver of the DUI charges in August.

A DUI charge is the same whether the suspect is accused of driving while influenced by alcohol or drugs.

In Florida, the charge can be proved in two ways: a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher, or if the driver demonstrates he is under the influence of alcohol or a drug that impairs his normal faculties.

The second is not so cut and dried.

Law enforcement has limited means to prove impairment. Field sobriety tests are one tool. The state also sometimes relies on drug recognition experts (DREs), police officers who have completed specialized training in detecting impairment due to drugs.

Michelle Perlman, misdemeanor division chief for the Brevard State Attorney's office, said her office recommends law enforcement agencies get a DRE to the scene as soon as possible if a suspected DUI involves drugs.

"This cannot usually be conclusively diagnosed by the average police officer," she said.

There are about a dozen DREs in Brevard, where more than 2,000 people were charged with operating a vehicle under the influence in 2009. As is common around the country, Brevard does not separately track DUIs involving drugs.

Cpl. Wendy Wheeler, who heads the DUI unit at the Brevard County Sheriff's Office and who is a certified expert, said it can take three to six months for an officer to become a DRE.

"The program is real intense," she said.

Another important tool is a patrol car dashboard camera that can record impaired drivers. But not all police vehicles have them.

When cases go to trial, a lot is up to the officer and the attorney, Perlman said.

"I do think that we see more difficulty in obtaining guilty verdicts on drug DUIs and that is probably because we are unable to prove the amount of drug in the person's system or the precise time when it was consumed," Perlman said. "I think if we can show a quantitative analysis, we will get a lot more plea deals."

Florida law does not require reporting the quantity of a drug in a driver's body in DUIs. But the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has started to conduct quantitative tests for drugs like cannabis and prescribed drugs like Xanax, Valium and Ativan and the date-rape drug GHB.

"We will continue to add quantitative tests for additional drugs," said Heather Smith, an FDLE spokeswoman.

She said law enforcement agencies also have the option to seek similar testing done by private labs "if the drug is one that FDLE does not currently quantify."

Defense Attorney Steve Casanova, who handles scores of local DUI cases, said traces of some drugs can stay in a person's system for as long as 30 days.

"How do you prove it was affecting him at the time of the arrest?" Casanova said.

In other cases, the suspect may have been prescribed the drug legally.

One state quantifying drug usage in DUI cases is Nevada, where the statute mentions specific quantities of some drugs that have to be present in a person's blood or urine.

But even when the presence of drugs can be quantified, the effects they have on different people may not be the same, said Joanne Michaels, program director for the National Traffic Law Center in Virginia.

"What they do in different amounts in different people is still being studied," she said. "Toxicologists are raising concerns because it can be an issue."
resource:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-17-dui-drugs_N.htm

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Avoiding a DUI Charge

Ever been pulled over on a DUI charge? Yes this happens but you can beat the system with the help of a criminal defense lawyer.

Driving under the influence or DUI requires fast action on your part so that your license will not be suspended. The first thing you have to do of course is hire a lawyer so you can immediately be released from jail.

In some cases, this does not happen because you are released on your own recognizance. However, some will require you to post bail which your lawyer can take care of.

Once released, it is now time to address this issue. In some states, a DUI charge generates 2 separate cases. The first is filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles while the other is a criminal court case. When faced with this problem, you have to face these charges within ten days from the date of the arrest.

Just like any other criminal case, this begins with your arraignment. You will be asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

A DUI is a mistake that can plague you for life & make your future miserable . From super high insurance rates to trouble passing a simple employment background check, those three letters will mark you as sure as if you had them written in red ink on your forehead. Figuring out how to beat a DUI is imperative if you are to get on with your life. Luckily, there are things you can do to completely erase or seriously minimize the damage a DUI does to your driving AND criminal records.

When a charged person contacts a legal representative chances are they know very little about what happens next. Unless they have been charged before, they are typically unaware of the details which must be attended to following the arrest.

Chances are, your criminal defense lawyer will tell you to plead not guilty to these charges. This will give him or her time to review the facts of the case so your defense will be established.

There are many strategies available that your lawyer can use to you get out of a DUI and have proven to be successful.

Your lawyer may for example argue lack of probably cause for the initial stop. This means there was no reason at all to stop you and if that is the case, submit a petition to suppress any evidence that the police obtained when you were pulled over.

It is also possible to argue faulty of unreliable BAC results. The BAC stands for blood alcohol test which is used to test if the person's alcohol level has reached the maximum limit which makes him or her unsafe to drive a vehicle.

The results could be faulty if your lawyer can prove that the test was not properly administered, the equipment used was not properly maintained or you have a medical condition that may have an impact on the reliability of the test.

Another tactic is to attack the credibility of the arresting officer. If your lawyer is able to question the police officer and prove there are inconsistencies in their testimony compared with the police report they filed, you just might have a chance of getting a not guilty verdict.

But if things are not working in your favor and everything was done by the book, then your criminal defense lawyer may advise you to accept a favorable plea agreement. Doing so may get you reduced charges or sentencing concessions with the district attorney.

If you don't want to negotiate and decide to gamble in court and lose, then you can try to appeal the court's decision. If you don't, there will likely be an increase in your insurance cost, limits on employment options and you will now have a permanent record.

Hiring a criminal defense lawyer is the only way to get out of a DUI charge. After all, there are circumstances which you can argue so that you name will not be included in the criminal database system.

resource:http://society.ezinemark.com/beating-a-dui-charge-168fea8eb05.html

Precautions for DUI Arrest

First Precaution:

Buy a cologne or perfume and then put it in the glove box of your car. You should take care of one thing that the cologne or perfume needs to be much more expensive since the cheaper brands you can get at Wal-mart tend to wear off quickly and are not as much effective as the expensive perfumes are. The whole purpose behind using the cologne or perfume is to mask the scent of the alcohol in your vehicle as well as on your person.

After you have been drinking preferably use a spray bottle to apply the cologne to yourself from head to toe. Before you drive a vehicle make sure that you have sprayed the cologne around the interior of the vehicle to mask the scent in the vehicle. dui_precautions

Second Precaution:

Always make sure that you have some breath aids in your car at all times. There is no need to skimp on price here either. What you have to do is to buy some gum or mints that are fairly strong and will actually work like nu-breath or something similar to that.

These breath mints will help you in a way that they will not only mask the scent of the alcohol on your breath, but will also help to slightly slur your speech due to the sucking and chewing action. Those people who have been consuming alcohol will typically have slurred speech patterns.

So when the officer stop you to investigate he will have a problem in judging that either the slurred speech pattern is due to alcohol consumption or it is because you are sucking or chewing on a breath mint.

Third Precaution:

Before driving your car always spray the interior of your car with an air freshener. Here again I must tell you to use a more expensive air freshener then you would normally use. The air freshener should be a spray air freshener and it should not be the one of those scented pine trees that you hang from your rearview mirror.

If you use all three of the above suggestions in combination as precautions for DUI arrest it will help you to greatly reduce your chances of being arrested for DUI. If the investigating officer would have just the slightest hint of alcohol on you or in your vehicle during a routine traffic stop, it can turn into a DUI arrest. As said by Ben Franklin “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
resource: http://www.dwiblog.org/2009/05/three-simple-precautions-to-reduce-your-chances-of-a
-dui-arrest/

Sunday, September 19, 2010

What Not to Say When Pulled Over by a Cop

In what he calls an "educational video" that's widely circulated on YouTube, comedian Chris Rock offers advice on what to do when you get pulled over for a traffic violation.

"Obey the law" he says. "Stop immediately" and "stay in your car with your hands on the wheel." Finally, "if your woman is mad at you, leave her at home. There's nothing she'd like to see more than you getting your [you-know-what] kicked."

It's a dead-on spoof of a hard truth: Respect authority. If you don't, you increase the odds of a pricey ticket.

"Everything in that video is absolutely true," said Sgt. Matthew Koep of the South Plainfield, N.J., Police Department. "It's funny, but it's accurate."

Citizens who are generally law-abiding are likely to come into contact with the police only under two circumstances: If you're a crime victim or you get pulled over for a traffic violation.

Police officers are not out to make your life miserable, but to make sure you're following the rules of the road and not endangering yourself or those around you.

With a few exceptions, and an egregious traffic violation is top among them, cops aren't mandated to write tickets. Most would rather send you on your way with a friendly warning -- that can save you time and money.

But handle the situation with an aggressive or arrogant attitude and you can expect to squeeze an expensive court date into your busy schedule.


Play Nice

First rule: don't argue.

"I get this all the time," said Karen Rittorno, a nine-year veteran with the Chicago Police Department. "'What are you stopping me for? I didn't do nothing.' If they try to take charge of the traffic stop, they're not going to get out of it without a ticket," she said. "We ask the questions, not them."

Accept that the police have caught you doing something that's against the law, such as speeding or gliding through a stop sign.

"All we do is react to what people do when you pull them over," said Dennis Fanning, a homicide detective and veteran officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. "We don't instigate the stuff, but we will react to you. The situation will escalate or de-escalate depending on how that person reacts."

To argue with cops is akin to calling them idiots. Don't do that. "That's implying that I pulled you over for no reason and that bothers me," Koep said.


Keep It Honest

Don't lie, either. Cops are trained to note the human characteristics of lying, including twitching and looking to the left, and they know the right questions to ask to suss out the truth.

Fanning estimates that nine out of 10 people lie to him. "It's an attack on our intelligence," he said.

Moreover, the truth can set you free. Koep recalled an incident when he pulled a young guy over for speeding.

"He looks straight at me and says, 'You know, officer, I wasn't even paying attention. I just had the best date of my life. I just met my future bride. I'm just on cloud nine right now.'

"The guy was completely serious," Koep said. "How are you going to write that guy up after that? Who makes that kind of stuff up?"

Of course, don't use pejoratives when addressing the police, unless you're eager for a ticket. But other words may backfire, too. Rittorno works in a crime-ridden section of Chicago where the majority of people she pulls over for traffic violations don't have licenses or insurance, she said.

"So I get a lot of, 'I'm sorry, baby. I didn't mean it, sweetheart,'" she said. "I hate being called 'baby' or 'sweetheart.' I'm 'officer' to you.''

The police don't like being talked over, either. "Be polite," said Chicago Officer Mike Thomas. "You have your rights as a citizen, too, but it doesn't do you any good to talk while he's talking."

Cops know that people are nervous when they get pulled over, and they expect a certain amount of jumpiness when they approach a car. Rittorno even admitted she's intimidated in the same situation. "I'm the police and I get scared if I get pulled over," she said.

But did you know they're on edge, too? You know who they are, but they don't know whether you're a good guy or a bad guy. "The only thing on his mind when he approaches you is safety," Thomas said. "You know you don't have a gun in your lap, but the officer doesn't know it."

Rittorno, for one, said she assumes everyone has a gun. "I'm always on 10," she said, referring to her high level of vigilance. "I take it down depending on their demeanor or what I see."


Stay Calm

When those headlights go on, it's best to pull the car to the right, stay in the car, turn the interior lights on if it's dark and put your hands on the steering wheel.

Don't make any quick movements, and don't turn to grab your purse or put your hands in your pocket or under your seat to retrieve your license -- until the officer instructs you to. Then, do it slowly.

Don't move to open the glove box either, until directed. And do that slowly, too. Let the police shine a light inside the box before you reach in. Many criminals hide guns in glove boxes.

"What's going to cause the situation to get worse is for the fear factor to rise in that officer," Koep said. "The officer is more likely to cut you a break as long as you can reduce that fear. …If you're friendly with me, not arguing or denying what happened, that lowers the fear factor and will make me a lot more cooperative with you."

Don't boast about who you know, either. That can infuriate cops. They consider it a veiled threat to their livelihoods. Fortunately, most municipalities have laws in place to insure that an officer is not fired or reprimanded for ticketing, say, the mayor's daughter.

Finally, never try to buy off a cop. "In those instances where they've offered me a bribe," Fanning said. "I loved making those arrests."

Jennifer Waters is a MarketWatch reporter, based in Chicago.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Beer Distributors Say NO to Prop 19

SOLUTION
The California Beer and Beverage Distributors have given the “No on Proposition 19” campaign a $10,000 contribution according to The Marijuana Policy Project.

How ironic it is to have alcohol makers teaming up with law enforcement groups to oppose marijuana legalization. This $10,000 goes with $30,000 from the California Police Chiefs Association and $20,500 from the California Narcotics Officers’ Association.

“Unless the beer distributors in California have suddenly developed a philosophical opposition to the use of intoxicating substances, the motivation behind this contribution is clear,” said Steve Fox, Director of Government Relations at MPP. “Plain and simple, the alcohol industry is trying to kill the competition. They know that marijuana is less addictive, less toxic and less likely to be associated with violent behavior than alcohol. So they don’t want adults to have the option of using marijuana legally instead of alcohol. Their mission is to drive people to drink.”

These are the people we are up against. The beer distributors don’t care how many of their consumers die of liver disease or crash their car.

“Members of law enforcement have argued against Proposition 19 by asserting, ‘We have enough problems with alcohol, we don’t need to add another intoxicating substance to the mix,’ implying that marijuana is just as bad as alcohol,” Steve Fox continued. “But the truth is that a legal marijuana market would not add another dangerous intoxicant to the mix; rather it would provide adults with a less harmful legal alternative to alcohol.”

When contacted by us, Allen St. Pierre – Executive Director of NORML – had the following to say:

“NORML is both interested and disturbed by the recent donation of $10,000 to the ‘Say No on Prop 19′ campaign, which seeks to maintain the many decade-old prohibition laws, thereby trying to protect some of their market share and profits that they know they’ll partially lose to a legal and taxed cannabis market.

In some ways what they’re doing is both parochial and logical, but bad for society, public health and consumers on the whole.”

Some cannabis activists are so disgusted with the alcohol lobby that they take their protests a step further.

“I have been so outraged by the role of the alcohol industry in funding Prohibition and opposing legalization, that I took an oath, ten years ago, to not buy or consume alcohol until cannabis is legalized,” Steve Kubby – Director of The American Medical Marijuana Association – told The 420 Times. This may seem like a small protest to some, but hitting the alcohol distributors in the profit margin is where it will hurt them the most. After all, if you make a product like alcohol you are pretty immune to public censure; but without money contributions to anti-cannabis groups becomes much harder.

Retired CA Judge and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesman Jim Gray says the alcohol companies are being smart. “It was a really wise thing to do from a merchandising standpoint to reaffirm the distinction between a legal and an illegal drug,” he said. “They are protecting their own economic self interest.” This is obviously the right of any business. It is up to us to show them that it is not in their economic self interest to alienate cannabis users.

California Proposition 19 has many enemies, some with major political clout, and some with deep pockets. But the days of their propaganda are over. It is a new time, and the truth can no longer be contained. Cannabis is a safer alternative to alcohol, and the alcohol companies know it.
resource:  http://the420times.com/2010/09/beer-distributors-contribute-to-anti-prop-19-campaign/

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Driving Under the Influence of Pets

Officials say: Pets are as dangerous as texting to drivers

A survey released by AAA this week found nearly one-third of dog owners admitted to being distracted when having their animal in the car. Twenty-one percent of drivers allowed their dog to sit on their laps — a big no-no, according to law enforcement officials. And some even admitted to feeding their dog or playing with it while in motion.

"Drivers not only love to bring Fido along, but they also often engage in risky behaviors when man's best friend is along for the ride," said AAA Northern New England spokesman Pat Moody. "Looking away from the road for only two seconds doubles your risk of being in a crash."

Police said DUI-P is just as dangerous as texting. They advise owners to put dogs in a crate and refrain from having them as co-pilots.

"They belong in the back seat, not in the front seat," said Kittery police Sgt. Gary Eaton. "If you have a crate, put them in it."

Eaton said he can remember responding to several accidents stemming from drivers who were distracted by a pet.

A New Hampshire State Police spokesman said while dogs may seem to enjoy sitting on a driver's lap with their head sticking out the window, the risks are not worth it.

"If the dog sees a cat or something that catches his interest, what's going to prevent the dog from leaping out?"

Moody noted an unrestrained dog in a 30 mph crash has the same force as a 2,400-pound projectile.

"Imagine the devastation that impact can cause to your pet and anyone in the vehicle in its path," he said.

Many states, including New Hampshire and Maine, have laws discouraging drivers from playing with pets in the front seat. Fines can be hefty.

Maine's recent distracted driving law can levy up to a $500 fine, while New Hampshire's obstructed and negligent driving statutes can impose a $75-250 fine.

In 2008, California legislators passed a bill that would have imposed a $35 fine for drivers caught with a pet in their lap. It was nicknamed the "Paris Hilton bill" after the hotel heiress was one of several celebrities caught with their dogs in the front seat. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger eventually vetoed the bill after critics called it an unnecessary government intrusion.

The AAA survey was conducted in conjunction with Kurgo, a Salisbury, Mass.-based business that sells pet travel products. Its "Skybox Booster Seat" for smaller dogs is recommended by AAA for securing the pets on car rides.


Picture
resource:  http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100821/GJNEWS_01/708219893/-1/FOSNEWS

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

7000-8000 B.C.
First woven fabric believed to be from hemp.

1619
Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law requiring farmers to grow hemp.

1700s
Hemp was the primary crop grown by George Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello.

1884
Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.

1906
Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government oversight.

1913California, apparently, passes the first state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

1914
Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and ******* (taxing scheme)

1915
Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.

1919
18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is ratified.

1930
Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)

1933
21st Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.

1937
Marijuana Tax Act

1938
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

1951
Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act (mandatory sentences)

1956
Narcotics Control Act adds more severe penalties

1970
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).

1972
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act.
Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment

1973
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA

1974 and 1978
Drug Abuse Treatment and Control Amendments. Extends 1972 act

1988
Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the Drug Czar

1992
ADAMHA Reorganization.
Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA’s programs into the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)


Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:

* Racism
* Fear
* Protection of Corporate Profits
* Yellow Journalism
* Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
* Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.



For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.

The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope, and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600’s, but did not reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900’s.

America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other “must grow” laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp — try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the “differences” seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church’s reaction to this may have contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the “problem” was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.” Early stories of Marco Polo had told of “hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp.” Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.

Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches to Drug Prohibition

During this time, the United States was also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws were passed without the general public’s knowledge. National alcohol prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.

Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and *******.

The federal approach is important. It was considered at the time that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

At that time in our country’s history, the judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then, both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).

Since drugs could not be outlawed at the federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the restriction. In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates and ******* were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government, which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.

In 1930, a new division in the Treasury Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This, if anything, marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana.


Harry J. Anslinger

Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and ******* wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their *****ic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

And he loved to pull out his own version of the “assassin” definition:

“In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs’ ‘hashashin’ that we have the English word ‘assassin.’”




Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”

“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”

And other nationwide columns…

“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”

Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

This all set the stage for…

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

“That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.

After some further bantering…

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: “President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn’t exist until William Bennett’s position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie “Drug Addict,” a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although the stories would adjust — the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of five got younger each time he told it). In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:

“Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana “reefers.” As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.

I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides.”

After Anslinger

On a break from college in the 70s, I was visiting a church in rural Illinois. There in the literature racks in the back of the church was a lurid pamphlet about the evils of marijuana — all the old reefer madness propaganda about how it caused insanity and murder. I approached the minister and said “You can’t have this in your church. It’s all lies, and the church shouldn’t be about promoting lies.” Fortunately, my dad believed me, and he had the material removed. He didn’t even know how it got there. But without me speaking up, neither he nor the other members of the church had any reason NOT to believe what the pamphlet said. The propaganda machine had been that effective.

The narrative since then has been a continual litany of:

* Politicians wanting to appear tough on crime and passing tougher penalties
* Constant increases in spending on law enforcement and prisons
* Racist application of drug laws
* Taxpayer funded propaganda
* Stifling of opposition speech
* Political contributions from corporations that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)

… but that’s another whole story. resource:http://www.420magazine.com/forums/petitions-initiatives/125665-why-marijuana
-illegal.html

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Flaws With Breathalyzer Tests and DUI Charges

lawyerarticle blog
Most people consider a breathalyzer reading to be irrefutable evidence when it comes to proving whether or not you were driving while your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was elevated past the legal limit. However, as with all equipment, there is still a margin of error and many variables that can adversely affect the readings of a breathalyzer test.

Causes of Errors in BAC Readings
An improperly calibrated breathalyzer can cause the ratio at which the machine calculates the amount of alcohol in your blood to fluctuate as much as 1000 points, causing extremely inaccurate results. General malfunctions such as low batteries or magnetic interference with onboard storage media can also compromise result reports from a breathalyzer unit.

The state of your mouth at the time of your BAC testing also has a huge effect on the readings. Residual alcohol trapped in your mouth within your saliva, food caught in your teeth, or residue on your tongue can all increase your BAC readings. Breathalyzers also detect the methyl part of a molecule present in alcohol – and many other substances. The machine may be detecting other chemical compounds that contain methyl besides liquor. For example, use of an alcohol-inclusive mouthwash has been shown to increase BAC readings.

Another major flaw in the breathalyzer unit is that the breathalyzer assumes the temperature of your mouth is about 93 degrees Fahrenheit. Some studies have shown that individuals arrested for DUI had actual mouth temperatures between 93 and 98 degrees, another variable that can negatively influence the BAC reading. A breathalyzer can only estimate the content of alcohol in your blood, and this estimation is based on the amount in your lungs and breath. Therefore, if you have belched, hiccuped, or vomited within 20 minutes of testing, this may also increase the BAC readings and lead to a DUI arrest when you were driving while below the legal limit.

Your body composition is also an important factor in how your BAC readings are reported. Two people with a 100-pound weight difference can consume the same amount of alcohol in the same period of time, but the lighter person can be affected up to twice as much as the heavier person. Your metabolism also impacts alcohol absorption. Breathalyzers test the level of alcohol as it has been absorbed into the bloodstream, but depending on how fast your metabolism works, it may not have completely absorbed at the time of testing.

Unreliable results can alter court rulings
If your DUI defense attorney can convince a jury that your BAC test was flawed, they’re less likely to consider a guilty verdict. With all the variables that can affect breathalyzer readings, there’s a good chance that any of the issues listed above affected your breathalyzer readings. A good DUI defense lawyer knows what to look for and knows how to question this kind of evidence in court.

With all of these ways the BAC test can be inaccurate or altered, a breathalyzer BAC reading is not always considered to be an accurate indicator of DUI. While some state DUI law does not allow you to deny a breath test when suspected of DUI, a blood test can be used if the person accused is unable to submit to a breath test.

If you trust the breathalyzer and want to know what your BAC reading is before you get behind the wheel there are many products you can purchase at amazon.com.


Product Description
Designed for maximum accuracy - used by hospitals, schools, and law enforcement as an alcohol screening device. The AlcoHAWK Pro is one of the most accurate semiconductor-oxide breathalyzers available. This new model takes a deeper breath sample from subjects and provides more accurate results than similar models. This model is trusted by many professional organizations for employee screening, emergency room care, and roadside testing. The semiconductor sensor accuracy is ±0.01%BAC at 0.10% BAC and is DOT / NHTSA approved as an alcohol screening device. The AlcoHAWK Pro is also 510(k) Certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The AlcoHAWK Pro now includes innovative FlowCheck technology. An important aspect of breath testing is ensuring that subjects blow a large volume of air through the tester. FlowCheck will verify that enough air has been blown through the AlcoHAWK Pro before displaying a test result. If the FlowCheck engages and recognizes that not enough air was blown, an error message will be displayed and a retest should be performed.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

10 Most Hilarious Ways to Get a DUI

resource: Super Tight Stuff
10 Most Hilarious Ways to Get a DUI

Everyone knows that drinking and driving isn’t safe, and that there are laws in place to prevent the operation of vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. For example, in the United States there is a national law that a blood alcohol content over 0.080 is considered ‘drunk driving.’ However, what you may not know is how widely those laws can apply — and how dumb people can end up with hilarious DUI arrests. Without further ado, I present the 10 funniest DUI cases — and STS’s new game “Did You Know You Can Get a DUI On A…?”


1. Riding Lawnmower



On the list of “Dumb Ways You Can Get a DUI” the riding lawnmower is a very popular choice. And, for reasons we can’t fathom, especially popular in Tennessee. Go figure. This April, in Blountville Tennessee, Martin Junior McMurray took police on a low-speed pursuit for a half mile on his lawnmower, swerving between lanes and ignoring their police sirens. He failed a field sobriety test, blew a 0.15, and had an unopened can of beer in his pocket. A hero.

Now, this seems almost too impossible to believe, but it appears the very same week Athens, Tennessee police arrested Jimmy Graham Junior (why are they all ‘juniors?’) for intoxication on his riding lawnmower. He was also charged with stealing fishing poles out of his neighbors garage. Video of his sobriety test below:



2. Motorized Wheelchair


Everyone knows the Aussies like to drink, but hows this for a story. In 2008 a man was found asleep in his motorized wheelchair on a highway in Northern Australia, very very drunk. Like blowing a 0.301 kind of drunk. It was also 10 A.M, and he was 64 years old. He claimed he was driving the “nine mile trip” to his friends house.


3. Zamboni

Maine is big into hockey, so it makes sense that they would have ice rinks everywhere. Which means it makes perfect sense when a man from Portland, Maine was arrested right around Christmas time in 2008 for “trying to drive an ice smoothing machine inside a Portland, Maine civic center.” Adam Patterson, a 22 year old, had crashed the Zamboni “into a wall near a storage area.” He was pretty drunk, and my favorite part of the story — “Authorities say he had also tried to operate two forklifts.” Champion. 

4. Motorized Barstool

6′1″, 230-pound Kile Wygle, a 26 year old from Ohio, welded a barstool to a 5 horsepower lawnmower engine and built himself every drunkards perfect form of transport. Well, until he crashed it at around 20 mph and had to be taken to the hopsital for minor injuries. This happened in March of 2009, and he entered a plea of not guilty for his DUI charges. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, because when the police asked him how much he had had to drink, he responded “a lot.” Later clarified to “around 15 beers.” He also said that his motorized barstool can hit a top speed of 38 mph, which is pretty speedy, so he must be smart. 

5. 3-Wheeled ATV

This one hails from Kentucky. Just curious, anyone noticing a bit of a trend developing here? Anyway, 18 year old Justin Dale Peters drank “about three beers” and took a 3-wheeled ATV for a drive. He attempted to evade the police, before stopping in a driveway with his hands held in the air. He blew a 0.09 on the breathalyzer, which is disappointingly low. .  

6. Motorized Lay-Z-Boy

In August 2008 a 62 year old Minnesota man drank “eight or nine beers” and drove his motorized Lay-Z-Boy reclining chair into a parked car. Well, more specifically he left a bar while driving his chair (did he drive it to the bar as well?), and then hit the parked car. The chair was powered by a lawnmower engine (another trend we got going) and was outfitted with a stereo, cupholders, and a magazine rack. He pleaded guilty to drunk driving. But, the story doesn’t end there — the chair has been auctioned off to support the Proctor Police Department. For $3,700. Now that’s just ridiculous. 

7. Horse

A Colorado man received a class-B traffic violation in 2009 for drunkenly riding his horse, named Cricket, to a strip mall in Arvada. He said he was out for a “joyride” and was given a $25 ticket. Apparently, this wasn’t the first time he has done this. Even funnier, an Alabaman woman took her horse for a midnight jaunt through town in 2009, and was arrested for being intoxicated and carrying drug paraphernalia. Like, crystal meth and “pills”. 40 year old Melissa Byrum York apparently used the horse to “ram a police car.” I’m really not sure how that works. 

8. Barbie Power Wheels

Our second entry from overseas, and also from a part of the former British Empire. This is Paul Hutton, 40, from Essex. And he drove a home-built electric vehicle designed for 3-5 year olds, with a top speed of 4 mph, at twice the legal limit. He was initially given a 3-year driving ban, because he had received another drunk-driving offense in the last 10 years. Because the vehicle is “easy capable of being outrun by a pedestrian” his sentence has been reduced. The best part? Its a pink Barbie car. The police confiscated the vehicle, but Mr. Hutton hopes to get it back. I mean, who wouldn’t? 

9. Tricycle

A 58 year old from Oregon was arrested in August 2008 for riding an “adult-sized tricycle” while he was hammered. Do they even make those? Like, is that even a thing? Adult-sized? Anyway, he was booked for drunk driving on a public road. At 2 PM. He rode through a stop sign and down the wrong side of the road, where he was pulled over and failed a field sobriety test.

10. Cruizin’ Cooler

Ah, its time. For the single greatest man-invention ever. The Cruizin Cooler, a motorized cooler scooter that can cruise at about 15 mph. You sit on it, ride down to buy yourself a 6 (or 30) pack, and the beer stays chilled on your ride home. Advertised as the “fastest cooler on the planet” it can even come with a trailer (or many trailers). Genius! Well, it came out in 2006 and took almost 2 years for someone to get a DUI on one. 57 year old Leslie J. “Bomber” Marr, from Whitehall NY is the one. He faces felony DUI charges (Felony!) and charges for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. The cooler contained 14 beers, and Mr. “Bomber” Marr was swerving and riding on the sidewalk. According to police he’s been “riding around town on that cooler for years.” And that is awesome!

Sunday, June 13, 2010

6 DUI Myths — The Truth About DUI

 Resource:  thaipparambil.com

FACT VS. FICTION—THE TRUTH ABOUT DUI

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is one of the most common criminal infractions reported, but it is also one of the most misunderstood. Among the public, and even among many attorneys, the truth about DUI is riddled with myth. The unfortunate result is that many of those who are accused of driving under the influence do not know their rights. And because they do not know their rights, they do not obtain adequate legal representation and they receive unfair and unjust penalties, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent. Before we look at each phase of the DUI process in detail, let us begin by setting the record straight on some common and damaging misconceptions.

Myth #1: “Most people accused of DUI are guilty.”

This is what we call The DUI Guilt Myth. Many people unconsciously assume that, if a person is arrested, “they must have done something wrong.” This assumption is especially widespread when it comes to DUI. Though it is understandable why someone might feel this way, this is not the way the law works. It is not the way the law should work. Being accused of a DUI is not a conviction. No matter what your situation is, if you have been accused of driving under the influence, you have every right to the fairness, justice and protection that the American legal system guarantees.

Myth #2: “These cases can’t be won.”

Because they hold this mistaken belief, and because they do not know their rights, many people end up pleading guilty to a DUI charge when they should have fought the flimsy evidence against them.

Myth #3: “DUI cases are just like any other criminal case.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. DUI law is markedly different from many other areas of law. Some even say that there is a DUI exception to the Constitution. Most of the time, a police officer must have “probable cause” before pulling you over. In layman’s terms, the probable cause requirement means that an officer must have some concrete reason to believe that a person is breaking the law. While this is always true if a single officer pulls you over on the road, consider the fact that, with sobriety checkpoints, a police officer needs nothing more than for you to drive through it.

Myth #4: “A DUI is a minor offense.”

DUI laws get tougher every year. Politicians know that they can gain points among their constituents by increasing the penalties and prosecutions of DUI. Over the years, a DUI charge has become more and more serious in most States. This is yet another reason why it is so crucial that individuals understand the process and the rights they are guaranteed.

Myth #5: “Once you have seen one DUI, you have seen them all.”

Every DUI case is different. One of the worst mistakes you can make —and a tragically common one— is to assume that your case is just like any other. It is not. While prosecutors must stick to a set mold to prove their case, a good defense lawyer will know how to break the mold in your favor.

Myth #6: “Any attorney can represent a person accused of DUI.”

This is like saying that it is fine to see podiatrist for high blood pressure. Like medicine, law is an area where it is impossible to know and do everything. There is no way for one person to have all the necessary knowledge and experience. You might know a lawyer who you are sure is competent, decent and trustworthy—all of which are important traits to look for in an attorney—but these qualities cannot substitute for experience in the area of DUI law.