Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 month ago

Should cops treat someone with a 'high tolerance' (who can drink a 12-pack & not feel it) the same as 'lightweights' during a DUI situation?

I bought a mini-breathalyzer on Amazon and had my friends use it after a night at the clubs. One friend especially looked sober but 'blew' a ".20" (Holy Sh**)! He also said he felt fine (non-buzzed)... Granted, he's been "high tolerance" ever since his college fraternity days, but doesn't that challenge the whole DUI-hunting craze these days? I mean, some people simply are not drunk or impaired after 6+ beers (despite a 'high' breathalyzer reading). Everyone is different... Right?

Update:

2nd question: Why is it not the LAW to require you to have a breathalyzer gadget (I bought one for $39.99 online) if police can easily CRIMINALIZE YOU for something you have no idea you're doing criminally?? (Especially if you have a 'high tolerance')...

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    its not about what the police think,  its about what the law says.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Drunk driving should be legal to begin with.

  • 1 month ago

    No.  Why?  Because how the law is written.  DUI is not a determination of your buzz but your blood alcohol level, which tolerance to alcohol has no effect.  Second, those with a high tolerance may feel sober but still can give away telltale signs they are impaired.  

    The advantage of having a high tolerance is that if you aren't impaired, you would be far harder to catch drinking and driving, right?  Of course that is always a gamble both with other people's lives and your wallet if you get caught.  Not just the fines, lawyer and court costs, but the increased auto insurance that follows you for years.  Two words:  Uber / Lyft. 

  • 1 month ago

    High tolerance would mean that it would take him more alcohol to reach that point.   It doesnt mean that hes sober.

    Most alcoholics think that they are "fine" even when they are obviously drunk.   Some even think that they "drive better" after a few beers!Why doesnt the law "require" it?   Most people drink responsibly.    I only drink when Im home for the evening and have no plans of driving anywhere.    Why should I be "required" to spend the money on such a device?YOU are responsible for your own actions.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Lisa M
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    Even if he appears fine, he still has 12 beers worth of alcohol in his body. Case closed. 

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    I do not understand your second question.

    That's more of an integrity issue.

    Why is stupidity never something a cop will punish you for?

    No, people who are heavy weights should not be punished for idiots on drugs, pills, and who are bad drivers anyway who cannot handle 3 drinks.

    I can drink all day and still be fine to drive. I just choose not to.

    I know liberals cannot handle their drinks.

  • 1 month ago

    Actually, they should be treated worse.

    There is a very strong inverse correlation between how drunk someone feels and how drunk they actually are.

    If someone who blows a 0.20 or even a 0.10 feels "fine", that means that they are extremely drunk, and much less able to drive safely than someone who feels drunk.

    Anyone who is not severely impaired will feel buzzed after 6 beers.  If someone has 6 beers and doesn't feel buzzed, then you don't even need the breathalyzer; just the fact that they don't feel buzzed after 6+ beers is more than enough to tell you that they can't drive safely.

    There are some drivers who can drive safely after 2 or 3 beers and there are some who don't feel buzzed after 6, but there is no overlap between the groups.  Someone who can feel fine after 6 should not be driving after even 1 beer.

  • 1 month ago

    No, they should arrest anyone that THINKS they have a 'high tolerance'. 100% of people that think they fit that category are more dangerous stone cold sober than those you think are 'lightweights'.

    linkus86 actually has the law EXACTLY BACKWARDS. BAL is considered PROOF of impairment. Impairment is the actual violation. You can be convicted of DUI is EVERY state without an allegation of BAL. In fact, you can be convicted of DUI with a BAL of ZERO. Impairment by something other than alcohol is just as illegal.

  • Mike
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Driving with a BAC over the legal limit is a separate offense. 99% of people over the limit are a danger to themselves and others.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    To answer your 2nd question: DUIs are a CASH COW for most cities... Why would cities disrupt their huge cash-flow?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.