Sounds great to me. A second alternative that would help is allowing local bars to exist, which are forbidden by zoning laws and church ladies in lots of places. JP Gusfield's written a nice book about this.

But then I'm stuck behind the guy going 15 mph, which already happens way too often. Is this your grandpa?

Sounds great until you're the person stuck behind the drunk at 2am. I'd also rather have everyone get it through their heads that they should have a designated driver or sleep it off rather than hope that no one's driving an old car that doesn't have the modifications.

2: That's me, you insensitive jerk.

You can still cruise through a red light at 15mph and into faster cross traffic, or drift over the line and into faster oncoming traffic. Just to be a tedious killjoy about it all.

In this wonderful modern world of internets and Wiis and Tickle Me Elmo we can build a car with an adaptive reflex testing mechanism that caps one's top speed according to one's measured reflex responses. The hammereder you are the slower your car.

I can't think of hardly any routes in Austin where you'd actually be stuck behind someone at 2:00 am. During rush hour this would be a bigger problem, though.

Minnesota has both very strict drunk driving laws and lots of drunks (my dad eventually lost his license for good). Some guys have taken to bicycling to the bars (I'm not the only one, and yes, I do have a valid license and not even a single moving violation).

In one tiny town with a great bar (New Munich, pop. 352) the state highway patrol stakes out the town and watches everyone coming and going, and they have a bar shuttle service. It's a community center, with a Catholic church across the street, and draws people from 10 or more miles around. This area was a major moonshining center back in the day. Catholics regarded moonshining as civil disobedience.

Tricycle tractors aren't very safe for the driver, though.

My preferred solution is not so much public transit, great as it is, but more watering holes, closer to where people live. I never did as much drinking as when I lived across the street from here, and I was always a bit worried about everyone else there, who had clearly driven.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the less I like it. On top of what Nathan said, the problem with drunk driving doesn't seem to be speed, but judgment.

Right. Even someone moving at 15 mph can turn in front of someone, or drift into oncoming traffic, and the other drivers on the road are legitimately going 60. It's not the speed of the drunk that matters, it's the relative speeds in the accident. I say legalize drunk driving of horsedrawn buggies, and trust the horse not to get into an accident.

I'd also rather have everyone get it through their heads that they should have a designated driver or sleep it off rather than hope that no one's driving an old car that doesn't have the modifications.

Devil's advocately, we could phrase this as the abstinence-only position, which leads to the question: is this policy fundamentally broken? I honestly don't have a firm opinion here.

I drove in a drunk-driving video simulator a few days ago, that was designed to scare people away from driving drunk by showing how difficult it is. I've driven drunk plenty of times, and can assure you that the simulator was full of shit (by which I mean not-very-much-like-driving-drunk-at-all).

More local bars. Or, at the very least, beer delivery services.

Don't you all already drive as though everyone else is drunk, if you're driving home at 2:30 am? To me, this just puts big flashing hazard lights and gives me more heads up to react to the guy drifting across the center line.

I'm not seeing the parallels with abstinence only.

I don't think the policy is fundamentally broken, if only because it's very common (across a couple of different social circles) for people to use a designated driver or find a bar in stumble-home distance or crash at a friends.

Heebie, your idea is obviously better than nothing, if laws were left as-is--i.e., sure, I'd like it if the drunks had flashing lights and were capped at 15mph. But I don't want people to think that's just plain okay, which means I'd still want drunk-driving to be illegal. Which means the drunks probably aren't going to be happy about turning on their flashing lights.

15: I've known plenty of people who've driven plenty stoned, drunk, whatever, on a regular basis, and rationalized it to themselves.

Also, there are SO many times (present excluded), when it would be nice if both Jammies and I could drink a couple drinks and be buzzed, and still get home easily.

12: I think what's broken about the current DWI enforcement process is that it's insufficiently draconian. If DWI=no drivers license of any kind for years, and DWI without a valid license=serious imprisonment, people would figure out how to not drive drunk -- designated drivers, taxis, Emersonian bicycle bar-hopping. The problem is that DWI seems to be a slap on the wrist too often.

(I expect that someone will now point out how unrealistic that is - you simply can't take away people's drivers licenses cavalierly, because it's impossible to live a normal life without them. That's fine, but it's tantamount to saying that 'as a society, we don't think drunk driving is a big enough problem to eliminate.')

16 notwithstanding, I do think the risks NW highlights in 5 might be overstated. The cars legitimately going 60 mph through the intersection are going to slow the fuck down and pay attention when they see the flashing lights approaching the intersection from the other direction. (And those flashing lights will be approaching slowly enough that this will be practical.) But I'm thinking something close to ambulance-level flashing lights, not just standard blinking hazard lights.

The town drunk in my hometown used to employ a variant of the 15mph strategy, yet he still managed to put his truck in the ditch or through a fence with disturbing regularity. He died before the whole MADD movement made chronic drunk driving less of a délit de cavalier, so he benefited from the sheriff turning a blind eye to his meandering trips to the store in second gear.

My father always had a soft spot for ole' Harve. I think they were friends in grade school or something.

I can also say from personal exper...--errr--from reliable hearsay that driving a John Deere under the influence is not free of risk.

when it would be nice if both Jammies and I could drink a couple drinks and be buzzed, and still get home easily

You should try to get a bar in your neighborhood.

18: I don't think that's accurate, based on some close friends in Texas at least. 6 months probation, a nominal jail sentence (overnight), and a yearly fee of ~$2000 to get your liscence renewed yearly for the next three years.

Also, I think there are very clear stats on distringuishing repeat offenders from one time offenders, and the repeat offenders get their liscences taken away.

For serious drinkers the designated driver thing doesn't work. First, sober people seldom enjoy the company or serious drinkers. And second, you can't take turns because serious drinkers can't stand to be sober when everyone else is having fun. That kind of thing works for people who have 2 or 3 beers in a night, but with that few beers, you're probably not over the legal limit anyway.

Discussion?

The problem is that DWI seems to be a slap on the wrist too often

Is this really true anywhere anymore? I think laws have tightened considerably in the last 15 years or so.

I've known plenty of people who've driven plenty stoned, drunk, whatever, on a regular basis, and rationalized it to themselves.

And they're going to flip a switch? If I'm arguing abstinence-only, you're pushing for the withdrawal method. :P

Taxis are probably unrealistic in the world as it is, most places, but in a scarier world DWI-enforcement wise, don't you think that weekend-night phone-a-cab services would spring up? It seems like such an easy business to start up (assuming that states wanting to discourage DWI did something sensible about making it easy.)

I'm thinking dispatcher with a long list of amateur drivers with cars, who want to earn a little extra money and are willing to be on call and sober for an evening here and there.

22 cont'd: I was arguing that getting caught for DUI is more than just a slap on the wrist, although not as extreme as you paint.

I guess the reason it reminds me of absinence-only policies is that it seems so rigged to fail in certain situations. When I was in college (or with grad school friends), no one ever drove drunk, because everything was walking distance. But friend-circles outside of these situations: people don't live in close proximity, and so when they meet up, someone has driven.

And if you're trashed, by all means crash at the person's house, or hopefully someone takes your car keys. I don't think you should drive if you're so wasted your going to drift across the center line.

Texas has a campaign going (that may be national), "Buzzed Driving Is Drunk Driving" and it always gets under my skin, because no it is not. It reminds me of "You can still get pregnant using a condom. Abstinence Only!"

Blood Alcohol Calculator. According to this, I could drink six 5% beers in 3 hours and be legal to drive, though somewhat impaired.

22, 24: I guess I'm reacting to the fact that people I know who have driving-type-social-lives do, mostly, seem to drive drunk at least occasionally, and they don't lose their licenses. This tells me that enforcement is too sporadic, or penalties are too low.

23: Yeah, I always wondered that about designated drivers. It never seemed like something that would work socially, mostly.

It's already a felony to drive drunk in a lot of places. I don't know how much more stringent the penalties could get; the problem is that when people are drunk, the penalties don't really matter. And also, that 0.08 is something that the average person has a hard time noticing. (Hence the recent PSA campaign around here how driving buzzed is driving drunk.)

The rule I've heard is that you detox 1/2 a drink per hour, and a normal size guy is just barely legal with about 2 1/2 beers still in his system.

29: I think the problem is that it's extremely hard to catch people, because most buzzed drivers buckle up and white-knuckle it the whole way home.

I don't know how much more stringent the penalties could get; the problem is that when people are drunk, the penalties don't really matter.

That was why I said that the penalty should be not just harsh in general, but immediate loss of your license. If you're the kind of person who loses track of whether driving drunk is a good idea when you've had a few, then the first time you get caught is going to be the last. (That is, you won't have a valid license, so you won't have driven anywhere sober, and you won't be in the position of deciding whether to drive when you're already drunk. This doesn't work for people who keep driving despite not having a license, but those I'd imprison.)

33: Stricter penalties that are imposed exceedingly rarely doesn't affect people's behavior patterns very often, right? Isn't this one of the reasons that the death penalty is totally ineffective as a deterrent?

32: Given that bars have parking lots, it seems likely that more could be done in terms of enforcement. If there's a cop sitting outside the parking lot watching you get into your car, they're going to have a good idea of whether to pull you over as you leave.

Minnesota has a very stringent system.

Minnesota DWI punishment goes up significantly for a third-offense DUI arrest within 10 years. Your car will be immediately impounded. There is significantly increased exposure for jail time on a third-time DWI. It is imperative that an alcohol abuse evaluation be obtained. If you are not an alcoholic, you will have to prove it at this point.

Minnesota DWI laws make a fourth-offense within 10 years a felony. Minnesota DWI law for a felony drunk driving conviction will include three years in prison and a fine of not less than $14,000.00.

Buzzed is still significantly impaired. The perception of being drunk seriously lags that actual impact on reflexes.

That said, buzzed driving is less bad than driving while having a serious conversation on a cell phone.

LB, I think the problem is that people will just keep driving without the license. And imprisoning those who drive without a license? Maybe that makes in NYC, but if it were somewhere like rural Alberta you've just made driving home buzzed at 0.08 (two beers for someone my size) lead to a year of unemployment.

Seriously, in all but the most rural areas, taxis are workable for at least the times when most people are out having a drink, if only people would start using them (chicken and egg).

Clearly smarter zoning laws etc. would be a better idea overall. Doesn't help you much if you're actually in a rural area, but the unavoidable mix of cars and bars in most - ex- sub- urban north america is just stupid.

34: I'm sounding more and more fascist here, but the idea would be to up the odds of getting caught and take away people's licenses. You're right that drastic penalties that hit rarely don't influence people's actions, but if they hit regularly, they do.

35: I don't think you can tell if a buzzed person is making an effort to act sober on their way to the car. So unless you want to screen all people leaving the bar, I think it's still going to be exercised rarely. Also that's a giant amount of manpower for a police force to generate.

38: See my 18.2. I think there's a good shot that penalties of the nature I describe would actually change people's behavior, so you wouldn't end up imprisoning normally law-abiding people. But I also think imprisoning a few normally law-abiding people is worth it.

Buzzed is still significantly impaired. The perception of being drunk seriously lags that actual impact on reflexes.

But that's why they should be fine at 15 mph, right?

I guess I'm proposing a breathalyzer range, so that buzzed people are forced into drunk-mode, and trashed people are still kept off the road.

(For repeat drunk drivers, they do install breathalyzers in your car, as a gate to the ignition. So this technology is already available.)

Jesus. We could pull people out of cars and breathalyze them mid-day, just to make sure they're rilly scared....

Hasn't drunk driving dropped a lot since my parents' day (when driving drunk meant they tossed you in the drunk tank overnight and gave you your keys in the morning)? I'm probably in the minority here, but if we've already turned it into a felony, instituted a three-strikes-and-we-take-your-car model, and levied thousands in fines, and we're not seeing significant further drops in the behavior, maybe the law isn't the best way to go about reducing drunk driving.

The law seems to be a better deterrent than the possibility of death, BTW. One reason not to be a libertarian is that, no, it is not necessarily true that people can be trusted to do the obviously sensible thing.

Same with seat belts. If you have paranoid feelings about government and authority as such, or are a rigid and slightly insane constitutionalist, or if you believe in principle that no one should ever tell anyone else what to do, or if you believe that stupid people should be allowed to stupidly kill themselves if they want to (revealed preference), then it makes sense to oppose seat belt laws.

Even then, drunk driving laws should be strict, since drunk drivers kill others.

Rah told me of recently of hearing somewhere or another that a new service has sprung up: paying someone to come to the bar where one is and drive one home in one's own car. This would obviously have to be a two person operation. I think it's just brilliant.

Technically Rah and I could walk to a bar from our house - the distance wouldn't be any problem, much less than a mile and we both like to walk - but a long stretch of it would be down a dark, two-lane road with no sidewalk and barely any shoulder and every time I see someone else walking down it I wonder what the fuck they were thinking. Neither of us is a sufficient drinker for it to be a deal, anyway. If we both go out I almost always drive and if we go out drinking I rarely have more than a token cocktail anyway.

I used to live in a neighborhood with a guy who'd lost his license due to DUI citations. Every night we'd see him walk past, towards the Food Lion; an hour and a half later he'd walk back carrying a case of beer.

axis are workable for at least the times when most people are out having a drink, if only people would start using them (chicken and egg).

I admit that subsidizing taxis so that they could be available in large numbers would probably be better than drunk-mode. Right now it takes hours to get a taxi in Austin if you're not downtown.

nd we're not seeing significant further drops in the behavior, maybe the law isn't the best way to go about reducing drunk driving.

You're probably right that we have seen significant drops in drunk driving, and that for the most part these changes are working.

44: I don't follow the logic here. We tightened up the laws some, and drunk driving dropped. Doesn't that suggest that tightening up the laws, and enforcement, more, would have the same effect? If there had been a substantial additional change in enforcement/penalties that didn't have any measurable effect on behavior, that would support your point, but I don't think there has been.

42: Your 18.2 doesn't follow, or at least "we just don't care enough to eliminate it" seems to be the wrong way to think about it. (Do we not care enough to eliminate theft and murder? But we're not executing thieves!!!!)

More bars and fewer cars! My new slogan.

The shuttle I mentioned above is in a very rural area. It doesn't take people home one at a time but runs a route.

50: But we already imprison people for driving drunk without a license in many states. We just don't take away licenses very quickly or for very long to begin with.

Is the "token cocktail" sort of a Shirley Temple for sophisticate adults?

49: I think there has been, or at least the drop is slowing enough that the extra enforcement (one strike-and-we'll-impound-your-car, but to make sure you know we're watching we'll be outside of every bar) might not be nearly as effective as non-law-enforcement based methods of reducing drunk driving.

Case in point, none of my friends have ever been arrested for drunk driving, but none of us drive home drunk. It hasn't been fear of a felony that's done that. (I'm not even sure what the laws in this state are.) Or think of New Year's. Lots of communities have taxi services or volunteer drivers or encourage people to spend the night at friend's houses if they can.

I'm sounding more and more fascist here, but the idea would be to up the odds of getting caught and take away people's licenses.

Says the new yorker. The fundamental problem is that in most of the country, life is somewhere between unworkable and much more difficult without a car. Couple that with the lack of local drinking options and the general lack of interest in just not drinking, and you have a lot of people who will drive anyway, after you take away their license.

52: Right, we think there's a difference between a repeat offender and someone who had one too many once. (Note, these are both cases where no injury or property damage occurred, so the issue seems to be whether one is making a habit of drunk driving enough to get caught.) That seems oddly sensible.

Maybe I'm frustrated by Texas's approach which seems to be levying huge penalties without providing social services to help people get home.

Possibly these services are available for the college kids to and from downtown, where they'd get the most use, and I just don't intersect with that population and don't hear the advertising.

54: Certainly, I'm all for efforts like zoning changes to encourage more local bars, more taxi services, and so on. People are going to drink, and if there's no way to do it without driving drunk, they'll drive drunk.

without providing social services to help people get home.

C'mon hbgb, if it were really needed, the market would provide.

Drunk-mode-for-buzzed-drivers wouldn't require any funding from the state.

59: Oh right. I forgot how responsive our legislature is.

Taking away someone's car for a third DUI offence in ten years doesn't sound draconian to me. It sounds like the bare minimum. People who have already been busted twice recklessly endangering people's lives and do it again should never be allowed to drive again, and frankly should consider themselves very, very lucky not to go to jail.

56: So, if I understand you, there's no problem with the way things are, now. Mostly, people drive drunk no more than a reasonable amount, and people who drive drunk unreasonably get stopped.

That's not an insane position to hold -- I don't really have a sense of the statistics on how much damage drunk drivers do. It might not be worth it to reduce the amount of drunk driving out there. But that's a decision society has to make.

In rural Minnesota they do take away licenses, and people do think about that. It's a very effective sanction.

When LB gets pulled over, the breathalyzer shows "Reptile", which just confuses everyone.

60: More taxis shouldn't require state funding. Might require some loosening of licensing standards to make it easier for some guy with a car to be a part-time cab driver, but taxis are a workable business.

For reference, here are the UK penalties for DUI. Obviously the alternatives to driving are easier in most parts of the UK for a variety of reasons, but still, these policies have drastically reduced DUI incidence and related accidents since the 70s.

Failing to provide a roadside breath test (Code DR70)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 3 (£1,000)4 penalty points on your licence
Disqualification is at the discretion of the Court

Driving/Attempting to Drive with excess alcohol (DR10)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 5 (£5,000) and/or up to 6 months imprisonment
Mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months for first offence
Mandatory disqualification for at least 3 years for second offence within 10 years.

Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (DR40)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 4 (£2,500) and/or up to 3 months imprisonment
10 penalty points on your licence
Disqualification is at the discretion of the Court

After Driving/Attempting to drive refusing to provide samples for analysis (DR30)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 5 (£5,000) and/or 6 months imprisonment
Mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months for first offence (18 months tends to be the norm as you are considered to have been trying to avoid being found guilty)
Mandatory disqualification for at least 3 years for second offence within 10 years

After being in charge refusing to provide samples for analysis (DR60)
Penalty - Fine - Level 4 (£2,500) and/or 3 months imprisonment
10 penalty points on your licence
Disqualification is at the discretion of the Court

Returning to the 15mph theme, and contra the reckless endangerment talk in 62, I've driven home on 15 mph empty suburban backroads in circumstances in which I'd have been very uncomfortable driving down major roads (with other traffic and 50 mph speed limits). It's not a good idea, no, and I couldn't exactly have complained if I'd been arrested, but I definitely didn't feel (even in retrospect) that I was recklessly endangering anyone's life. I could have busted a mailbox, maybe, but that's about it.

68: Yeah, the problem there is making a legal distinction between 'empty backroads', 'major roads', and 'the kind of backroads that are mostly empty but sober drivers tend to whip down at 70mph'. You're probably right that you weren't endangering anyone, but it's a heck of a line to draw.

Is the "token cocktail" sort of a Shirley Temple for sophisticate adults?

A Manhattan and half an appetizer, so yes.

When LB gets pulled over, the breathalyzer shows "Reptile", which just confuses everyone.

Great, now I want to watch V again.

More taxis shouldn't require state funding. Might require some loosening of licensing standards to make it easier for some guy with a car to be a part-time cab driver, but taxis are a workable business.

I don't know if this is always true. It's not necessarily financially worth it to send a cab to someone's house in the suburbs to take two people home, instead of having them just lurk downtown. Or picking people up from bars located all over a spread out city, and taking them to whatever suburban development.

You'd think they could just charge more to make it come out even, but taxis really do take hours to come sometimes.

63: No, you're not understanding me (and man isn't "people drive drunk no more than a reasonable amount" just the sweetest most charitable way to put it. I'm also glad we're not making that decision in this comment box, and that it's society's call. ) I don't know enough about the stats to know whether we're catching the right people in the right amount, though my sense is that once we made sensible laws, drunk driving decreased, but that further laws haven't really dropped the rate all that much.

I am skeptical that making the laws more draconian would decrease drunk driving proportionally, and I don't think it would do much for the repeat offenders. And if a community has limited resources, I'd rather see those go into education, rethinking zoning laws, and taxis services than having extra police checkpoints for enforcement.

67: Mmm. I've been too lazy to look things up, but the sort of enforcement regime I've been envisioning is my impression of the current state of the law in lots of places -- the UK system looks good to me.

but it's a heck of a line to draw.

It's also the sort of line that people don't draw well when inebriated.

Hell, I've known people who literally couldn't walk straight to jump in a car and arrive home safely, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The main problem with impairment isn't following a known route home, but that even in non-extreme cases, you deal with surprises very poorly. Your odds of avoiding an (avoidable) accident plummet, and your odds of causing one through distraction jump. Which doesn't mean you can't make it home regularly without incident, but it's a hell of a selfish thing to do.

The other nice benefit with local bars (my hometown still has a couple) is that they're local. Meaning that they have a regular clientele, tend to be within a mile of home, with a bartender who knows the customers, whether they've had too much, can just take their keys and make them call a friend, that sort of thing.

73: I've also wondered about moving these penalties over from fines to large numbers of community hours. This is more progressive, and would presumably have the effect of reminding you for a much longer time.

67 looks about typical for here, too.

Yeah, I should clarify that the personal incidents I'm describing were mostly high school, plus some college and none since, and that all were clearly very poor judgment. I sound almost like I'm advocating it, which I'm certainly not.

It's not necessarily financially worth it to send a cab to someone's house in the suburbs to take two people home, instead of having them just lurk downtown. Or picking people up from bars located all over a spread out city, and taking them to whatever suburban development.

yeah, there are incentive problems. It's basically one way trips, and the only way to make it look good is to have far more cars out than the city traffic only.

also, being a cab driver for the after bar crowd really sucks.

My drive home from the local bar is about 1/2 mile, 80% of it on an almost untravelled country road. But I do go through one moderately busy intersection.

Just looking at that calculator, I'm actually very seldom legally impaired (10 beers in 5 hours, 8 beers in 4 hours, etc).

The 0.08% rule now strikes me as too lenient. Either that, or the calculator is off. I won't drive with more than 3 beers in 2 hours. That doesn't get me close to 0.08% blood alcohol, but I definitely don't feel 100% capable at that point.

72: Sorry if 'no more than a reasonable amount' sounded snippy; I was responding to your "so the issue seems to be whether one is making a habit of drunk driving enough to get caught.)" which suggests that someone who doesn't make a habit of it enough to get caught under our current level of enforcement really isn't a problem to worry about.

The reason that I'm focused largely on enforcement is that I think it's an impetus for change. Listen to heebie talking about taxis -- they just don't exist in a way that makes them useful in her area. I'm not a blind market-worshipper, but that really sounds to me like a demand problem: not enough people want taxis in Austin to make it worthwhile running a taxi service. If you create a pool of people who are afraid to drive home from bars, and need taxis (and you do whatever work is necessary to make setting up a taxi service reasonably easy), people will start taxi services. And so on.

The impression I get is that it's not that there's no alternative to driving drunk, but that there's no alternative that's worth the trouble, because driving drunk occasionally isn't a big deal. The bigger a deal it is, the more people will figure out alternatives.

81: It's hard to say without stats. And you're right that taxis can be hard to come by, so there's not often an alternative. I'm not sure what level of enforcement would have to be necessary (nightly checks on all major routes?) to create the demand for a taxi service in somewhere like Austin, but I suspect we could take the money that we'd pay the cops and use it to pay a shuttle service or something.

people will start taxi services. And so on.

This is the sort of chicken and egg thing I was talking about though. One way to do it is out of fear of reprisal, but as it is there are significant discincentives to taking a cab (if you assume you'll have a 2 hour wait, etc.). So I think what hbgb was saying (not to speak for her) is that you can attack that side too.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the risk side of the equation for taxi drivers. Flat rate zoned, prepaid, would help there.

shuttles are a pretty good idea for relatively dense areas, I suspect.

One band I play with travels a fair amount, and we have a rotating DD schedule (instituted after a friend got a DUI and we all realized we were being selfish and stupid). When DD, my personal drinking policy is one drink before, one on stage.

The shit part of the job is, (a) you end up being the one stuck loading the trailer, and (b) you still run a high risk of getting pulled over*, which is just annoying.

*Cops, especially in small towns, love to pull bands over. I keep suggesting we paint the trailer to say something like "Holy Jesus Conservative Late Night Church Choir" to put a stop to the profiling.

The bigger a deal it is, the more people will figure out alternatives.

I don't think this is true, because getting caught is such a random lottery. I think that until it is semi-likely that you'll be caught, then even with measured consequences people will radically change their behavior.

Given that bars have parking lots, it seems likely that more could be done in terms of enforcement. If there's a cop sitting outside the parking lot watching you get into your car, they're going to have a good idea of whether to pull you over as you leave.

IANAL, but I think there is case law to the effect that leaving a bar parking lot does not constitute probable cause. Of course, cops can fabricate probable cause out of just about anything, so YMMV.

if we've already turned it into a felony, instituted a three-strikes-and-we-take-your-car model, and levied thousands in fines, and we're not seeing significant further drops in the behavior, maybe the law isn't the best way to go about reducing drunk driving.

Word. The enforcement approach has worked at making responsible adults think twice about driving drunk (or, at minimum, moderate their alcohol intake when they know they will be driving). In some states, you lose your licence automatically upon being charged with DUI, even if you are acquitted by a court (it's an administrative penalty, like asset forfeiture in the drug war). There isn't much room for making the penalties for a first offense any more draconian without causing some serious miscarriage of justice along the way.

If you are interested in reducing the threat to public safety, the highest marginal impact will come from (1) getting alcoholics (a group that largely overlaps with the population of chronic drunk drivers) into sobriety treatment; (2) providing more options for people to drink where they don't have to drive (this includes, IMO, places for underage drinkers to congregate); (3) providing alternative transportation options for social drinkers.

A friend who'd had a DUI (or two... ? Yes, this is one of the suspected alcoholic friends) had a mandatory device installed on her car for a certain period -- a breathalyzer that required a sober blow before the car could be started.

Around here people really worry about being caught. I'd say that MN is a success story of strict enforcement of drunk driving laws on a heavy-drinking population.

I don't hear people complaining about the laws much, either, and I do hang out in bars. That's probably because everyone here knows both drunk drivers and people who've been killed by drunk drivers, or who've been killed when driving drunk. In other words, the victim population and the offender population are often the same people.

People do complain about individual policemen they think are unfair or too harsh.

people will start taxi services

But taxi licensing is lucrative, local governments will never unclench enough to allow such a thing. What if one of the marginal taxi drivers willing to work for an extra $40 on Saturday night is a stoner kid who delivers pizzas, who takes responsibility for allowing that? It's a position ready made for a busybody local politician. Similarly zoning laws to allow more local pubs; people are collectively unwilling to make reasonable rules on this issue, I think. We're not the first to think about this-- that book by Gusfield is quite good.

Expecting a better system beyond what we have now (laws that eventually punish serious offenders) is utopian IMO.

I keep suggesting we paint the trailer to say something like "Holy Jesus Conservative Late Night Church Choir" to put a stop to the profiling.

Better yet: get an airbrush painting of a dude jumping a dirt bike and the phrase "Stan Rockland's Motocross Champion Caravan" in a bad-ass font.

The most insane situation I know of is this: My small town has a university of about 30K students, and bars close at 12:30 am. So all the college kids drink till midnight, then drive 20 minutes on I-35 to Austin, so that they can finish drinking until 2:00, and then drive home again. I absolutely refuse to drive from Austin home late on Fridays or Saturdays.

Of course, this would not be helped by drunk-mode or taxi services. They need to just extend bar hours here until 2:00. In November there was a non-binding resolution showing 85% of the voters want the bar hours extended.

Locally then, heebie, superficiallyit sounds like an interbar shuttle would work well.

Problem is, college kids are cheap, and you couldn't run it for less than 20/trip or something. That's a lot of cheap beer.

86: Yeah, harsher penalties don't do anything without the sort of surer enforcement Emerson's talking about.

Can we have lights and slow speeds for people talking on Cell phones? As a cyclist I have to say those people seem bent on killing me more than drunk drivers.

90, 92: Moving off the drunk driving specifics -- all sorts of people I respect talk approvingly about devolving power to communities. And it sounds good in the abstract, but the concrete effects I associate with actual power held by small localities are this kind of mickeymouse bullshit that makes it impossible to do anything sane.

Relatedly, last night's 60 Minutes highlighted a particularly gruesome DWI accident. The driver was charged with and convicted of murder.

I'm with LB and, I think, heebie: trying to draw a line or lines between different kinds of driving-after-drinking is a seemingly good idea but extremely hard to do.

The most insane situation I know of is this

Here's a competitor: until very recently, the county that contained Appalachian State University was dry, meaning that the students would drive to Blowing Rock or somewhere to go to bars, then make their way back home on winding mountain roads in the middle of the night.

re: 80

If your nearest bar is 0.5 mile away, why would you drive?

The college problem is really the 21 year old drinking age. If they could drink legally at 18, they could drink comfortably on campus and not go racketing around in the middle of the night in their cars.

re: 100

Yeah. Ive never understood that US zoning bollocks. At Scottish universities a minority of students are under-age [because the scottish education system is such that some kids hit university at 17 (or very rarely, 16)]. They deal with that by colour coding their student ID. Or at least they do at Glasgow.

...then make their way back home on winding mountain roads in the middle of the night.

I will make the contrarian argument that this is less dangerous than the typical suburban drunk-driving outing. The winding mountain road demands your attention and forces you to slow down (this this the psychological grounding of traffic calming), and there are fewer "innocents" on and beside the road for the impaired driver to potentially kill (that is, if you do crash and kill yourself and your passengers, at least it's more likely to be a one-vehicle accident).

ust looking at that calculator, I'm actually very seldom legally impaired

It's harder than people think to get up to that .08. When we do training for the DUI enforcement, we have volunteers come in and the highway patrol guys get them to varying levels of BAC so we can practice the field sobriety tests. For a lot of those volunteers, they have to drink significantly more than their usual pace to get up there. The highway guys told me that once a couple of mormons who'd never touched any alcohol volunteered, thinking they would get a one time experience of being drunk under controlled conditions. Both of them were puking well short of .08

101: This is pretty common in Canada too, with 19 being the drinking age in most (all?) of the country. You could argue with that particular age, but it does result in mixed status of students.

As I understand it, quite a few campuses have mixed events where entry is by color coded I.D, but if you are too young to drink you'll get a big black X on your right hand or something. Maybe that's the other way around. Anyway, it's visible for both bartenders and officers (presumably quite common in that situation).

The entire idea of dry counties is pretty dumb, I think, but dry campuses within driving range of bars is dangerously inept.

Huh. I'm remembering eighth grade health, which may have been lying to us, but I thought a 150lb person would on average hit 0.10 at a rate of a drink an hour. That rate of drinking would leave me just barely noticing that I'd had a drink -- I wouldn't spontaneously worry about driving from a safety point of view, although I wouldn't drink that much if I was driving just to be sure.

103: It takes serious training and determination to break .25.

103: For someone of my body weight, it's two-three beers according to that calculator.

Hey gswift, how should a motorist answer when asked by a police officer at a traffic stop "Do you know how fast you were going?"?

I understand that this is a trick question: if you say yes, he's going to ask how fast, and if you say no, then you shut the door on court testimony that you were driving slower than the radar says.

Ordinarily I would want to say something like "I am asserting my fifth amendment right to remain silent," or, "I don't make any statement to law enforcement without the presence of a lawyer," but I need a phrase that won't sound uppity or piss the police officer off.

Something that makes the same point with a touch of light, self-deprecating humor would be ideal. Any suggestions?

the students would drive to Blowing Rock or somewhere to go to bars, then make their way back home on winding mountain roads in the middle of the night

I find it interesting that abstinence-only came up way up-thread, actually, because I seem that and dry counties or other ordinances that make drinking inherently more dangerous as inspired by the same psychotic belief that if someone "sins" then any consequences are simply the punishment they deserve. The county where I grew up was mostly dry - one ABC store in the county seat, no drinks by the glass anywhere in the county - and I would hear people say that if someone wanted to drink so bad they got themselves killed, well, maybe they had it coming.

I understand that this is a trick question: if you say yes, he's going to ask how fast, and if you say no, then you shut the door on court testimony that you were driving slower than the radar says.

If you're planning to testify (I presume truthfully) that you were driving slower than the radar says, why not just answer "yes" and tell him how fast you were going?

105: Huh. Now that I look at the blood alcohol calculator, .08 is pretty darn drunk (at least for me. What I'd have to drink, at what rate, to get me over .08, I'd definitely be buzzed enough to be less coordinated.) Eighth grade health, wrong again.

All these years I've thought that .08 was a really, really tight 'I hardly know I've had a drink' level.

All these years I've thought that .08 was a really, really tight 'I hardly know I've had a drink' level.

Me too. Apparently, I could drink six beers in two hours and be .07.

That calculator seems off at the upper limits. For seven "on the rocks" drinks in five hours, it reads .06. For eight it reads .10. That's quite a difference, legally speaking.

Also, eighth grade health? I'm still holding a grudge about failing that test on hair and skin care. It made no sense.

Something to keep in mind is what a standard drink consists of.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/PocketGuide/pocket_guide2.htm

People go to parties, or drink at home, etc. and are pouring wine and mixed drinks that are ridiculously larger than standard.

Drunk bicyclists beware. Operating non-motorized vehicles under the influence is still a crime.

Then there are the cases of folks sleeping it off in the still-parked car (not driving) who get arrested and convicted for DWI. These are outliers.

I staggered home from the college pub and parties numerous times. I and everyone else was much safer then than the many times I drove drunk or stoned. But bars are not seen as good neighbors in most places so that's not an easy fix.

111/112: I suspect the calculator you're looking at is taking empirical absorption/release rates into account, since achieving and maintaining a particular b/a ratio are very different things

112/112: me three. But it's more than eighth-grade health class: I remember a big debate when my hometown went from .1% to .08%--with opponents claiming that was ridiculously low, outside the range of impairment, etc., and supporters not really disputing any of that but saying "yes but we want a zero-tolerance policy that will send a stern message", blah blah.

Are we sure Emerson's calculator is accurate?

Apostropher weighs 200 pounds, unless he drinks light beer.
This wouldn't be a problem if everyone just drank from the comfort of their own bathtub, like any sensible person.

115: I thought of that, so I calibrated on bottles of beer, which are a standard size. It's still way off what I would have guessed.

I mean, .08 by that scale I'd still be standing upright and enjoying the party, but I'd be bumping into stuff (more than I do sober.)

118: Right, I remember that as well.

But bars are not seen as good neighbors in most places so that's not an easy fix.

This is self reinforcing. It's largely the model of bars we mostly build that makes it a `bad neighbor'

but I'd be bumping

and grinding?

123: We've met when I've been drinking?

We've met when I've been drinking?

If you're forgetting things, you're probably well past .1

If you're planning to testify (I presume truthfully) that you were driving slower than the radar says, why not just answer "yes" and tell him how fast you were going?

Just what kind of lawyer are you, anyway?

Ordinarily I would want to say something like "I am asserting my fifth amendment right to remain silent," or, "I don't make any statement to law enforcement without the presence of a lawyer,"

Yeah, that's going to make you sound like a weiner.

Just do what Brock said. Because really, once you're pulled over for speeding, your only hope is that he'll just warn you, or write you for a lower speed than you were actually going. Your odds of convincing a judge that the radar/laser device malfunctioned are slim to none, and if you're not an ass, often a cop will warn you or write the cite for less of a speed than you were clocked at.

Apostropher weighs 200 pounds

Right now about 195, but 200-210 is where I've been for the past several years.

101: Also, in the UK, it's legal for anyone over 16 but under 18 to have beer, wine, or cider with a meal if someone over 18 buys it for them.

Given most student bars also sell cheap food, basically that means a 16-year-olds restrictions on drinking are limited by their older friends willingness to buy for them, and the bartender's willingness to decide how much food/how many drinks still constitutes just having a drink with a meal.

It's largely the model of bars we mostly build that makes it a `bad neighbor'

True, dat. Posh Deep Blue Suburb gets around that difficulty by having neighborhood pubs with absurdly expensive drinks to keep out the riff-raff, but that's not a model that generalizes well.

That calculator gives me some unexpected tipping points.

A common mode of drinking for me is to drink moderately over long periods of time. By that calculator, if I drink a beer and hour for five hours, I'm fine, but by 8 beers, I'm not safe to drive. And that is only adding 3/5 of a beer an hour.

Here's the calculator I used. It includes things like being female and allows you to put in the size of the drink.

129: which is vastly more sensible than the current case in the US, all told.

125: According to wikipedia: Blackouts are quite often associated with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol, however surveys of drinkers who have experienced blackouts have indicated that blacking out is not directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed.

128: You're wasting away! Have a beer or something.

That calculator gives me some unexpected tipping points.

That's pretty much what you should expect though, rob, as your bodies ability to process alcohol is somewhat fixed. So there is a tipping point where you are accumulating per hour.

Although, obviously thats now how all cops do it. I'm in a city agency that doesn't have a quota, and I'm a fan of educational contacts over just writing a boatload of tickets.

But, there's always the people who start getting all roadside lawyer over minor things, and it invariably comes across badly.

Your odds of convincing a judge that the radar/laser device malfunctioned are slim to none

Actually, I was thinking about betting on the cop not showing up for the hearing and getting the case dismissed by the judge, but thanks for the advice.

More generally, what kind of word choice should one employ to assert one's 4th/5th amendment rights without sounding like a weiner? I'm thinking of the "Do you mind if I have a look in the trunk?" or "So where are you headed to tonight?" type questions.

I've never driven after more than a single drink [although i'd be quite happy to have a pint with some food and then go out and drive].

However, even allowing for fairly low tolerance limits on blood-alcohol levels, I'd probably be under the limit quite a long time after I'd think it safe to drive.

This is self reinforcing. It's largely the model of bars we mostly build that makes it a `bad neighbor'

Seriously. I want the English pub model (I have no idea about its Scottish, Irish, Welsh, or Manx counterparts).

138: In NY, the cop doesn't have to show -- their written report can be enough.

This is general lawyering experience, but there's a lot of room to simply fail to answer direct questions if you say something polite on a similar topic. I would answer "Do you mind if I have a look in the trunk?" with "I'm running late, so I need to get going if I can." or similar. It's unambiguously not consent, but it doesn't sound obstructive or lawyerly.

99: I frequently bicycle, but not in midwinter, and it's not a good walking road.

I'm not completely confident in the calculator I posted either. I compared myself and my sister, at different weights, and the answers didn't seem right. Either my intuitions are wrong, or the calculator is. Or 0.08% is too high.

6 beers in 3 hours would leave me legal. That doesn't seem right. I wouldn't feel safe at that level.

...however surveys of drinkers who have experienced blackouts have indicated that blacking out is not directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed.

Yes, I would certainly trust a person who blacked out from drinking to be able to accurately report the amount of alcohol consumed.

Same here. Or three 12 oz 4.5% beers in one hour.

re: 142

I'd imagine that depends on bodyweight.

I once bought one of those over-the counter breathalyzer things. Tried it on myself the morning after a heavy night on the piss. I didn't even register. No way I'd have actually driven, though.

145: The calculators include bodyweight (and Cala's includes sex, which I understand makes a difference as well).

"I'm running late, so I need to get going if I can." or similar. It's unambiguously not consent, but it doesn't sound obstructive or lawyerly.

Also a really good way to clarify whether you are "in custody" under the "free to leave" standard.

The beers I drink aren't 4.5, and yours may not be either. I'm puny, though, so I calculate out at about the level I would have expected. 2 beers in less than an hour = no driving.

re: 146

Yeah, I know they do include it. What I mean is that it wouldn't surprise me if someone with a fairly heavy bodyweight could feel drunk before their blood alcohol level registered as above the legal limit.

134: Ok, a) wikipedia, and b) have you ever blacked out from a couple of drinks?

I'm fully prepared to believe that it's not linearly correlated across population (i.e. some people black out readily, others don't). Also susceptibility seems changeable. However, unless pills or something else are involved, I've never witnessed this happen to anyone who didn't have a proper load on. And I've seen a hell of a lot of people who later didn't know what they'd been up to.

Remember, though, that your body is processing the alcohol over time, too. Getting to 0.08 might not be all that hard, but keeping it there might be harder.

145: Near shiv's hometown in Canada they started putting those things in bars, which of course immediately turned into a contest to see who could blow the highest number.

Around here bars are generally thought of as good neighbors, with individual exceptions. Some of them almost have the status of churches as community centers.

re: 150

A couple of times I've had very vague memories of an evening out after really quite moderate alcohol intake. It's only happened once or twice* where it's totally disproportionate to alcohol intake but it's pretty disturbing when it happens. I've sometimes wondered if other people feel like that a lot more often...

* I don't mean total blackouts, I just mean that what I said and to whom is hazy

146: I don't think sex makes a difference except insofar as it's related to body fat percentage (which does make a difference).

I once bought one of those over-the counter breathalyzer things.

Yeah, that must be a fun party game for a bunch of chronics.

I knew a guy who would regularly hit .5 or so (at an educated guess). That takes years of training. We all watched out for him, pretty much.

I'm thinking of the "Do you mind if I have a look in the trunk?" or "So where are you headed to tonight?" type questions.

What LB said, at least for the trunk/search type questions.

It's usually better to just be honest about where you're going. A lot times I'm asking something like that for reasons not apparent to the driver. If I'm in an area where we've had problems with car burglaries, metal thefts, etc., I ask to try and get a better read on the person. Do they have a reason for being around here, is it someone I should record afterwards as a field contact, and so on.

148: Hrm. Yeah, looking at a chart the beers I drink more likely average a little over 5, and that nudges me just over .8 at three in an hour. But barely, and I'd think driving immediately after three beers in an hour would be way, way out of line.

I ask to try and get a better read on the person. Do they have a reason for being around here, is it someone I should record afterwards as a field contact, and so on

Presumably that's just about exactly what KR's looking to avoid.

My sister the counselor laughed at 151.2. She suggested a one-stop bar/drunk-tank for serious drinkers.

I don't think sex makes a difference

To the contrary, I think really any form of vigorous exercise will help you to process the alcohol more quickly.

something I suspect people are not accounting for is that the way your intuition/feel for bac levels changes with the amount you drink, but also the obviousness of your intoxication.

A very occasional drinker might get all pukey before hitting the .08 limit. Someone who regularly drinks a bottle of scotch and a case of beer on a friday night, on the other hand, may be just happily buzzing along (albiet inebriated)

150, 153: Oh, I was just quibbling about different people do react differently -- obviously, you're not going to black out unless you're properly drunk. I've lost bits of memory on nights where I wasn't remarkably drunk by my standards, though -- for me, late night and sleepiness seems to be a big factor (that is, remembering the night out, remembering getting home, and waking up without a clear memory of actually going to bed.)

I'm not sure if sex makes a difference beyond the body fat percentage and lower body weight, but it's sort of irrelevant. Even the average fit woman will have more body fat than the average fit guy, so gender is a decent proxy.

My sister the counselor laughed at 151.2. She suggested a one-stop bar/drunk-tank for serious drinkers.

If you are interested in reducing the threat to public safety, the highest marginal impact will come from (1) getting alcoholics (a group that largely overlaps with the population of chronic drunk drivers) into sobriety treatment; (2) providing more options for people to drink where they don't have to drive (this includes, IMO, places for underage drinkers to congregate); (3) providing alternative transportation options for social drinkers.

Knecht is correct on this point. DUI laws have gotten amazingly tough.

The other thing that I would add would be to increase education about how little alcohol it takes to get to a .08 bac. Most people have no idea. Many people feel and act perfectly fine at .08 to .10. Alertness and attention to the road is dependent on many factors. Alcohol is only one factor.

(In Virginia, it is mandatory jail at .15.)

However, since some want to get tough on dangerous driving, I suggest that we ban driving while sleepy or inattentive too. So, we should place restrictions on cars so that nobody can drive more than 150 miles without a two hour break.

Presumably that's just about exactly what KR's looking to avoid.

Of course. But "I'm going to the bookstore" tends to get you out of there a lot quicker than "I'm asserting my 5th Amendment right to not talk to you".

that is, remembering the night out, remembering getting home, and waking up without a clear memory of actually going to bed.

yeah, that's not really a black out. Those can sometimes run to multiple days, it seems. But in any case, usually seems to involve no memory whatsoever past a certain point.

156: If I were confident that all or even most law enforcement officers were like gswift, I would be more comfortable with the advice to answer honestly. But when mostly I trust in the advice of this law professor and this police officer who explain why you should never talk to the police.

The fourth comment in that thread more or less encapsulates my viewpoint, BTW:

I've always figured that if I ever found myself confronted by a government or law officer, that I would repeatedly tell them that I have every intention of cooperating but not without the presence of a lawyer representing me.

Even the average fit woman will have more body fat than the average fit guy

But not necessarily more than the average unfit guy.

The other thing that I would add would be to increase education about how little alcohol it takes to get to a .08 bac.

If you look at the thread, either there are a bunch of screwy BAC calculators online, or education has gone overboard in the direction you suggest.

More generally, what kind of word choice should one employ to assert one's 4th/5th amendment rights without sounding like a weiner? I'm thinking of the "Do you mind if I have a look in the trunk?" or "So where are you headed to tonight?" type questions.

nah. Be simple. Be clear. Be unambiguous.

"You do not have my consent. Am I free to leave?"

These BAC calculators are useless; there's nowhere to indicate if you're pregnant.

re: 172

Or a 'tick here if your are of Scottish/Irish origin'.

169: But he'll have a higher body weight, too. The likelihood of a guy being my size with a high-ish body fat percentage is quite small.

If you look at the thread, either there are a bunch of screwy BAC calculators online, or education has gone overboard in the direction you suggest.

Many people still don't know. Serious drinkers know. But many people still do not comprehend how long it takes to process alcohol.

These BAC calculators are useless; there's nowhere to indicate if you're pregnant.

Nah, that's ok. Babies absorb alcohol like regular tissue, not like fat. So just keep track of your current weight and you're golden.

"Lower body weight has long been blamed for womens' low alcohol tolerance, with the assumption being that women just got drunker on less. But one of the most critical recent findings by the institute, issued in a December 1999 report, was that women absorb and metabolize alcohol differently from men and generally achieve higher concentrations of alcohol in the blood after drinking equivalent amounts. This makes women more susceptible to cirrhosis of the liver and brain damage and therefore more in need of early intervention than men."

171: Honestly, I've had very little (almost no) contact with the police. I would worry about pissing the cop off, and being harrassed for it, if I said something that sounded like an uncooperative assertion of my rights. This may be an unrealistic worry (and obviously it wouldn't apply to all police officers), but your suggestion would make me nervous.

Hey gswift, what do you think of this video "How to avoid being arrested", from an organization called Flex Your Rights?

LB:

arrgggggggggg. That is exactly why the police almost always get consent.

"oooh, I might offend the police officer by asserting my 4th amendment rights!!!!'

These are your CONSTITUTIONAL rights. People have died for them.

You are not the servant of the police. They work for you. You owe them the respect to be polite and not nasty to them. Nothing more.

Following on 165, which I think was a joke, I'll be completely serious and say that before we talk about taking people's license away forever if they drive buzzed once, we ought to be making it a serious felony to talk on a cell phone while driving.

if I said something that sounded like an uncooperative assertion of my rights.

I just re-read this statement. It really is an AMAZING statement.

LB, a very intelligent lawyer who has NO trouble sticking up for herself, is scared to assert her constitutional rights.

Is it any wonder that we get false confessions or the total evaporation of the 4th Amendment???

"I just want to make the police officer happy"

179: Someone whose workplace doesn't block youtube should also link to the Chris Rock video on "how to avoid getting beat up by the police", or something to that effect. The advice, IIRC, included
- shut the fuck up
- turn that shit off
- don't break the law
- get a white friend

180: I can't really tell if you're saying that fear of harassment as a result of sounding uncooperative is unfounded, or that we all have a civic responsibility to invite harassment in the interest of proudly claiming our constitutional rights. If the former, good to know. If the latter, what's the loss in looking for a conciliatory way to take the same position -- I'm not suggesting waiving your rights, just figuring out how to assert them without being a piss-off.

175: But people in this thread were all surprised the opposite way - our health classes left us believing you got to .08 much faster than these BAC would have you believe.

176: A drunk baby is a happy baby.

I'm not confident about the success rate of treatment for alcoholics. A lot of them seem to do well in therapy and then relapse. My sister gets a lot of multiple referrals (5-10 times in treatment). I'd lie to see some statistics.

Like cancer and schizophrenia, there are a lot of kinds of alcoholism, and a lot of definitions.

182: Yes, it's completely pathetic that I'm cautious about offending the police, after all, they have no practical or legal power to cause me any harm.

Get off yourself a little sometimes, Will.

181:

I have this great, unique idea:How about we don't enact any more laws?

We already have laws regarding reckless driving and manslaughter.

Why do we need new laws? The only reason we get these new laws is so that politicians can raise money and shout about how tough they are on crime.

Not trying to be pissy, but before we start enacting new laws, why don't we look at the ones we have?

In Virginia, drive .15 and you go to jail and have to have ignition interlock (blow before your drive). You also pay out the wazoo.

If a .08 BAC really does correllate with where I myself feel unsafe to drive, ie ~2 beers in an hour, then maybe I have no beef whatsoever and I've been white-knuckling when I've thought I was borderline, for no good reason.

180: Good points, will. If you are innocent, there's no good reason to let some officer rifle through your stuff. If you are guilty... "I'm sorry officer, but I'm not going to consent to that."

will, I think you're reading more into it than LB meant (icbw)

"How do I say X in the way least likely to waste more of my day" isn't the same as "How do I avoid saying X"

Most police are decent enough people just doing their jobs, I'm sure. For these, anything you say that isn't actively impolite is going to go over ok. There are enough pissant power-trippers out there though that you can catch yourself a bunch of wasted hours if you rub them the wrong way (or even just randomly) with a reasonable likelihood. I don't think it's crazy to discuss ways of maybe avoiding that.

I left high school with the idea that the odds on pregnancy were about 50% per pop. When we were trying to have a baby, we had to try a lot longer than I expected. A friend of mine tried for over two years, using all kinds of extra hocus-pocus, and still couldn't do it.

187: I didn't interpret Will's comment as a slap at LB, but as a tut-tutting about the state of 4th/5th amendment in contemporary society, and I think he was right on the money. If LB is so scared that the police might exercise their authority arbitrarily to make her miserable (their "practical or legal power to cause me any harm") that she is dislinclined to make a straightforward assertion of her rights, then that says something about our society. You don't have to conclude that LB should behave any differently; it's just an observation.

184: I think the original point was based on emphasizing the need to be utterly unambiguous and eliminating any wiggle room.

Yes, it's completely pathetic that I'm cautious about offending the police, after all, they have no practical or legal power to cause me any harm.

Get off yourself a little sometimes, Will.

Thanks for the advice, LB. I recognize that you take great pains to avoid casting judgment on anyone else, so I apologize for doing it to you.

I think that it is amazing and very telling that you are scared to assert your rights. I also do not think that it is uncommon. (Note, that I didnt say that you are pathetic before we get into a 1000 post argument about a minute detail.)

I think that it is amazing and very telling that you are scared to assert your rights.

Spell this out a little further, if you would?

soup, kb and others are correct. My comment was not that LB was pathetic (she is not) but that we, as a society, have been trained that our rights are less important than pleasing an officer.

that she is dislinclined to make a straightforward assertion of her rights

But I don't think that's what she was saying. I think she was saying she'd like to assert them in the way least likely to make her miserable.

It really isn't the same thing at all.

My comment was not that LB was pathetic (she is not) but that we, as a society, have been trained that our rights are less important than pleasing an officer.

We have been trained? The issue is that police are above the law.

Can we at least all agree that there is a better approach (both globally, and locally) that lies somewhere between "sure, whatever you want officer" and "fuck you pig, I know my rights" ?

There are a fair number of people around here who confront the police in various ways. Basically, if you do that it becomes almost a full time job. The police look for you, and you have to be looking for them, and you end up studying the law and going to court a lot, and filing your own lawsuits, etc.

This area is so ethnically uniform and generally peaceful that the police don't get the automatic benefit of the doubt. A certain number of respectable citizens are cop-haters.

Spell this out a little further, if you would?

Officer: "You cannot wear that shirt that says 'America kills innocent Iraqis.'"

Citizen: "Oh, I am sorry, officer." Puts on something to cover the shirt.

we, as a society, have been trained that our rights are less important than pleasing an officer.

This seems like an odd reading of a conversation that was about how to interact with a police officer in a conciliatory fashion without waiving one's rights. Waiving one's rights would be giving consent for the search -- looking for a means of unambigiously witholding consent that won't make you sound like a smartass is not a waiver of those rights.

The sound card's busted on this computer, so I can't watch the video right now.

Look, there's a huge difference in telling someone where you're going, and consenting to a search. I would recommend the former, but no way would I consent to a search of my car. It's perfectly normal to answer that you'd rather not have someone search your car. But chucking around the 5th Amendment when asked if you knew one of your headlights is out? Just try and imagine how it sounds from the other side of that conversation.

But yeah, generally, if you're up to something, keep your mouth shut. People really do just volunteer stuff like how they've got a bunch of drugs in their pocket.

I think she was saying she'd like to assert them in the way least likely to make her miserable.

As a practical matter, I think LB's advice is sound. As a philosophical matter, I think Will's lament is correct. As an individual, I would never deliberately antagonize a police officer any more than I would taunt a letter carrier or insult a bank teller. But the fact that I feel much more trepidation about the former than the latter, based on a well-founded fear that they might abuse their authority to teach me a lesson, is telling, and disturbing. And the fact that a hyper-educated, self-confident lawyer feels the same way is the evidence that seals the case.

202: Man, that'd be craven. Good thing no one suggested behaving like that.

Your assertion of your 4th amendment rights or 6th amendment rights needs to be very clear.

"Do I need a lawyer?" is not "I am not going to speak without my lawyer."

"You cannot search my car" is not the same as "Do I have to let you?"

My dorm roommate who was a prostitute was given all these rules about asking if the john was a cop before stepping over various threshholds. She wasn't afraid to assert her rights.

LB: it makes a difference if the police officer is a personal friend rather than a stranger.

It's perfectly normal to answer that you'd rather not have someone search your car. But chucking around the 5th Amendment when asked if you knew one of your headlights is out? Just try and imagine how it sounds from the other side of that conversation.

I'm imagining it, and I am figuring the other side of the conversation would view both your "perfectly normal" example and the "5th Amendment" example the same way. That is, "This person has something to hide, otherwise he would not be resisting my reasonable requests."

But maybe police have more respect than I think for people who show they aren't afraid.

will, I think you're heading off into the weeds here.

The rest of us are way over here, having a different conversation. Join us?

205: Will lament about the society as a whole may well be correct, but it's a straw man in this particular conversation as far as I can see.

Personally I think the "training" aspect that will is talking about is on the one hand real, and on the other hand more symptomatic than fundamental. Which doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing.

Geez, LB, are we now going to dissect and argument over our two posts?

I suggested that you say "You do not have my consent. Am I free to leave?"

I would worry about pissing the cop off, and being harrassed for it, if I said something that sounded like an uncooperative assertion of my rights. This may be an unrealistic worry (and obviously it wouldn't apply to all police officers), but your suggestion would make me nervous.

Where did I suggest something confrontational or mean?

208: A guy I know who was a prostitute had a little card he would read to johns with a list of questions he wanted them to answer, but, as I understand it, cops are allowed to lie and say that they are not cops.

213: Like in other aspects of life, people involved in criminal activities have all sorts of inexpert community knowledge about `how things work' that may or may not have much relation to reality.

213: That's my understanding as well. I have a vague (not that I've ever done lawyering in this area) recollection that the issue for prostitutes is that if the cop is the one who proposes sex for money, they're in the clear (this doesn't actually make sense to me, come to think, but I do seem to remember it). So maybe the questions were along the lines of 'What would you like to do next?' and no sex would happen unless the john actively proposed it and offered money in return?

212: Whatever. I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point.

From recent watchings of TVs, fictional law enforcement officers have learned to get around the requirement that they answer "Are you a cop?" with "Yes". See, the trick is to respond with "Are you?". And then change the subject.

This seems like an odd reading of a conversation that was about how to interact with a police officer in a conciliatory fashion without waiving one's rights. Waiving one's rights would be giving consent for the search -- looking for a means of unambigiously witholding consent that won't make you sound like a smartass is not a waiver of those rights.

I am still confused about how "You may not search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?" is being a smartass.

if the cop is the one who proposes sex for money, they're in the clear (this doesn't actually make sense to me, come to think, but I do seem to remember it)

Wouldn't that be entrapment?

further to 213: It might be surprising how often police officers are incorrect about the law too, particularly when it ventures further from their core day to day activities.

This does relate to wills concern, because some police will assert complete bullshit. However, that doesn't mean there aren't better and worse ways to handle it when it happens.

204: The thrust of the video is that you should politely and unambiguously refuse to submit to any searches and don't be fooled by any police attempts to act like your friend.

Example: if the police knock on your door. Step outside to talk to them and close the door behind you.

There's a lot of "I know you are just doing your job office, but I'd rather not answer questions without a lawyer. Am I free to go now?"

I am still confused about how "You may not search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?" is being a smartass.

I don't think it was. Otoh, I think your characterization of what LB was saying was way off though.

Where did I suggest something confrontational or mean?

Flatly asserting one's rights, as you suggest in 171 and 207, is necessarily confrontational if one is talking to a policeman who has been all friendly-polite with you and implying that you need to be friendly-polite back and everything will work out fine. Unfortunately it's necessary to stop being polite at that point, as you say.

Back to the original question of how to go out drinking without getting a DUI, my experience is that having a pious, but fun-loving muslim friend is an excellent solution.

Not being sarcastic here -- you've had a lot more experience of working with the police than I have. I've had none, and have had no non-professional interaction with the police since high school, and that wasn't much. I have gathered the second-hand impression that a straightforward, non-conciliatory, assertion of one's rights to a police office presents a non-zero risk of being perceived as aggressive or hostile, and therefore of inviting retailiation. This impression may be mistaken; if you, from your (genuinely) greater experience with policing believe that it is mistaken, and that worries about being subject to harassment for asserting one's rights in a non-conciliatory way are misplaced, that's good to know.

If the impression isn't mistaken, though, it still seems pretty reasonable to me to avoid pissing off cops where possible and still not waiving any rights you wish to assert.

Another good lesson: Knecht will totally bail on being the DD, leaving you with the need to sober up fast!

222 = 220

Unfortunately it's necessary to stop being polite at that point, as you say.

Maybe not, though. "Is there a better way to say this?" is a reasonable question.

Of course, we're all talking out of our butts here, because these things are highly situational as well.

Also, we haven't agreed on a polite answer to the question "do you know how fast you were going" that does not reveal more than you have to.

I suppose it matters whether you actually know how fast you were going. I've had the experience a few times of driving an large, unfamiliar car with a big engine and being surprised when I look at the speedometer at how fast I am going.

229: Yep. My car is rattly, and I know how fast I'm going by how it sounds. Driving other, quieter cars, my judgment is way off.

208 is interesting. You had a roommate in who was a hooker?

IIRC so did McManus. Is this an Unfogged tradition? Do I need to shack up with a lady of the evening in order to fit in?

If the impression isn't mistaken, though, it still seems pretty reasonable to me to avoid pissing off cops where possible and still not waiving any rights you wish to assert.

I absolutely agree that you do not want to unnecessarily piss off the officers.

Being clear and simple works well. Not citing case law and Consitutional Amendments but a simple, unambiguous denial of consent.

I really wasnt trying to say you were pathetic. Most of us wilt in the face of a uniform. Obey the officer! But that simply has it backwards. They serve us.

Example: if the police knock on your door. Step outside to talk to them and close the door behind you.
There's a lot of "I know you are just doing your job office, but I'd rather not answer questions without a lawyer. Am I free to go now?"

That's good advice. It's pretty common to get PC for a warrant based off of plain view evidence gathered from a "knock and talk".

Cut out the middle man/woman, togolosh. Be the hooker roommate.

I suppose it matters whether you actually know how fast you were going.

That's a good place to start. Doesn't always help you:

Q: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
A (confidently): "30, officer"
Q: "Did you know this is a 20 zone?"
A (less confidently): errrr....

By the way, I may not be much help on how to avoid getting on a cops' bad side, but I can provide some fail safe methods on how to get there quickly....

232: Okay, but really, no one was talking about wilting or waiving anything. I was talking about ways to achieve unambiguity while not sounding like a smartass or a lawyer.

I honestly don't know how realistic my fears of harassment are, here -- they may be totally unrealistic. You sound as if you think they are, and you're in a better position to know.

plain view evidence

GSwift: Do they train you that plain view evidence is totally different from a concealed handgun?

Because my experience is that officers can see a marijuana see up under the seat of the car, at night, across a divide highway, going 65 mph, but they are unable to see the bright pink gun in the car.

Also, we haven't agreed on a polite answer to the question "do you know how fast you were going" that does not reveal more than you have to.

I've always gone with, "Gosh, I guess you're gonna tell me it's faster than I'm supposed to, huh?"

I honestly don't know how realistic my fears of harassment are, here -- they may be totally unrealistic.

In my experience, your fears are fairly unrealistic, but mostly because of your socio-economic position. At the very least, any additional pain in the ass you incur is likely to be pretty minor in the scope of what is possible.

231: I did! My freshman year roommate had a lot of problems, but lived a very colorful life. I know I've described it somewhere in the archives, which I would rummage up but I'm about to head out.

I don't have time to read all 230 comments, so I don't know if there are any fans of country great George Jones who have already weighed in with this, but...

Jones' autobiography, I Lived to Tell It All, recounts in painfully stiff prose the one-way ticket to Hell his life became. All the stories are there, including the time Jones rode his lawn mower to the liquor store after being denied the car keys.

That's actually probably the least interesting drunk George Jones story, but it does show that Jammies family is following a classic redneck tradition.

Yeah, I figure my socio-economic position is what makes it unlikely that I'm going to be interacting with the police at all. Once I am, I can't picture what would bring that about enough to have much of a sense of how it would go. (And I was sort of thinking about how things would play out for someone in a position who would be more likely to be talking to the police, rather than for me personally.)

242 to 239

I think she was saying she'd like to assert them in the way least likely to make her miserable.

Pretty realistic, I'd say. You'd have to be a saint not to want to stick it to the smart-mouth fuckers who give lip. I've been told, in an epic buzzkill moment, to "wipe that smile off your face or you'll be spending the night in jail."

I wasn't even giving him lip. I was just smiling because I was so HAAAPPPPYYY.

Because my experience is that officers can see a marijuana see up under the seat of the car, at night, across a divide highway, going 65 mph

Heh. We wouldn't get away with that for a minute around here. But yeah, we got lectured by the city attorney on plain view, limitations on a Terry frisk, etc.

245: I always wondered about that -- the 'plain view' cases I remember from Crim Pro all had such screwy facts; I ended up absolutely agnostic between "man, criminals are dumb", and "cops stretch the truth some, don't they". Both seem plausible, but looking at a casebook, who can tell.

I have more experience with CBP than with cops, but when crossing the border, the best advice is summed up by "The answer to 'Do you know what time it is?' is 'yes.'"

Both seem plausible

I've seen pretty compelling evidence that both are commonly true, fwiw, LB.

Heebie,
Everyone knows that if you drink, don't drive: do the watermelon crawl.

I will say straight up that I would be afraid to assert my right to refuse a search if I was pulled over, and I think I'd be wise to be afraid. Hopefully I would still do it on the principle of the thing.

Out of curiousity, is there anyone here who has actually refused permission to an officer to search their car or home, or at least been in that type of situation?

I also think that pubs should have plastic chairs and toughened anti-shatter pint glasses, so that people can beat each other up when they get drunk, but less harmfully.

(Actually thinking about it, I have worked in a pub which more or less did actually do this. They even had lightweight plastic cues for the pool table).

What is it they do for broken-window scenes in movies? Light plastic? That'd add some drama. Maybe have it on the second floor, with airbags below the windows.

This actually sounds like a business model -- I bet you could charge a premium for the drinks.

253- Sugar glass.

I'd go to that bar. But then, I want any possible wedding reception to include a pie fight.

231: I also once had a housemate of the same profession.

In terms of cop interactions, I was raised in the "yes sir/no sir" school of cop interaction on the theory that the vast majority of officers of the law I'd ever meet would be my cousins so as long as I fluffed their egos I'd probably get off with a warning. That said, one New Year's Eve when I'd been waiting tables at the country club I was pulled by a townie prowl car on the way home. When asked if I'd been drinking I held out my nametag and said, "No, but I've served plenty tonight to every rich fucker in this county and if you just go back up the hill and wait you'll have your pick of the litter." All I got was a laugh.

Back on the original post. Discussion first, data last, I always say.
Here are the US total highway/alcohol-related fatalatiy statistics since 1982.

          Total  Alcohol-Related
Year Number Number Percent
1982 43,945 26,173 60
1983 42,589 24,635 58
...
1992 39,250 18,290 47
1993 40,150 17,908 45
...
2000 41,945 17,380 41
2001 42,196 17,400 41
...
2005 43,443 16,885 39
2006 42,532 15,829 37

I cannot find anything before 1982, but that was about when the MADD and efforts to tighten things up really got going. At least in my experience, the change in societal attitudes starting right about 1980 was massive. Before that, in my crowd we barely gave it a thought. Total acceptance even at the parental level ("OK, have fun, try to be responsible drunk-driving college-aged boys.") This pamphlet gives a quick little historical overview of how DUI was handled before and after (in New York State). It really was a "slap on the wrist" before that time.

I have more experience with CBP than with cops, but when crossing the border, the best advice is summed up by "The answer to 'Do you know what time it is?' is 'yes.'"

The situation is less ambiguous there, because the border-crossing exception to 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures leaves the individual pretty much at the mercy of the CBP. (In fact, law enforcement makes frequent use of "border searches" miles away from the actual border, i.e. road blocks on north-south interstates.)

Three times in the last 12 months I have experienced CBP inspectors trying to lure me into making a false statement (all in fair play; I'm not faulting them for doing their job). In one case, I politely said "It's all there on the form," and the officer brusquely told me "This is a secondary inspection. I'm asking you a question." In another case, the officer (probably imprudently) told me that my answer matched what he could read in his database--in response to a question I wouldn't have guessed that he already knew the answer to.

I'm pretty well scared shitless of the CBP, because they have the power to make the rest of my life into a living hell by their choice of what to type into their computer or stamp in my passport.

Example: if the police knock on your door. Step outside to talk to them and close the door behind you.

Heh. Didn't work for me!

Out of curiousity, is there anyone here who has actually refused permission to an officer to search their car or home, or at least been in that type of situation?

I've done it both ways. But I've done it the one way in the sense of 'c'mon motherfucker, search away'.

max
['At any rate, we've had 40 years of more draconian, and that's worked so well.']

I should point out here that John Deere is associated in the UK with large, heavy, powerful tractors rather than fairly innocuous golf/greenkeeping equipment, which gives the whole thread a different slant.

Before that, in my crowd we barely gave it a thought.

A good working definition of the beginning of "Generation X" is anyone who fill two or more of the following...
- first legallly drank at age 21
- first smoked pot after Nancy Reagan popularized the phrase "Just say 'no'"
- first had sexual intercourse after Rock Hudson was diagnosed with Aids.

260, meet 20.

257: This pamphlet gives a quick little historical overview of how DUI was handled before and after (in New York State).

That would be this pamphlet.

258:We had an awful time of it when last we crossed back into the States. We were driving CA's parents and sister to the airport in Buffalo on our way back from visiting his brother in Kitchener. The teenytiny border patrol man with vast mustachios did not like the fact that CA (US passport) was driving his parents (UK passports) and sister (US passport) out of ON to the airport in Buffalo on his way home from visiting his brother (Canadian citizen). And who the hell is the other chick with the non-matching name? We ended up ganked out of the line and the car taken apart and wiped down. Interestingly, the guys doing to the searching and wiping were pleasant and apologetic.

The situation is less ambiguous there, because the border-crossing exception to 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures leaves the individual pretty much at the mercy of the CBP.

Right. The officer has broad discretion whether to let you in or not, and they keep a hell of a lot of information on you. So do the Canadians.

It's harder when one's spouse is a citizen of the country one is visiting; one has presumptive immigrant intent and that has to be overcome on every visit. shiv never had a problem here, and I haven't generally had any problems getting into Canada, but last summer I did get hassled a bit in Montreal. I've found one thing that helps is to emphasize that one has a defined purpose for the visit with a timetable for leaving ("Two weeks' vacation before the semester starts.") In any case, I was glad that I had printed my itinerary and could show that I had indeed booked a return flight.

By the definition of 261 I am gen X, which does not make me happy. To me Gen X are whiny losers who never knew how damn good they have it and need to STFU and GTFO my damn lawn.

What's the general view on driving while stoned, out of curiosity? I've only driven buzzed on alcohol a few times and quickly learned that was a bad idea, but I've driven stoned quite a lot and turn out to be quite a good at it.

I've driven stoned quite a lot and turn out to be quite a good at it.

Between the paranoia and the distortion of the time sense (which makes you think you're doing 80 when you're doing 20), driving while stoned has some safety-positive effects to mitigate the impaired judgement and reaction time.

If more people made their own beer and wine at home rather than driving all over hell and gone to procure it, lives would be saved and families strengthened. I'd advocate for home distillation as well, even though a few novices would inevitably burn down their houses. If Obama were to sign legislation allowing homemade liquor the way Carter did for homebrewing, he would automatically be in the running for greatest president ever.

Rah told me of recently of hearing somewhere or another that a new service has sprung up: paying someone to come to the bar where one is and drive one home in one's own car.

I think I've linked to it before, but we have a nonprofit here called RideOn Portland, which gets you and your car home for $10. A bargain, and a great idea.

I'm not confident about the success rate of treatment for alcoholics. A lot of them seem to do well in therapy and then relapse.

A prodigiously alcoholic friend of a friend flew back from a couple of weeks at Betty Ford and walked off the plane completely smashed. Pathetic, but there was a "can't keep me down" side to it that seemed to earn him as much admiration as pity. His wife was also a raging alcoholic, but maintained secrecy about it so carefully that no one knew she was drinking a fifth of vodka a day while training for a marathon.

267: I forget.

269: Buck just put up 77 pints of beer over the last couple of weeks. He has a picobrewery setup in his office.

You found yourself a good man, LB.

He's cute, too.

77 pints of beer on the wall, 77 pints of beer, you take one down, do some freelance editing, 76 pints of beer on the wall...

268: I lock the speedometer at 10% under the limit. As for delayed reaction times, I don't think marijuana necessarily has that effect. Certainly I haven't noticed any, and my stoned ping-pong record speaks in my favor. Indeed, wasn't there a snowboarder back in the 90's who was disqualified from competition due to a failed piss test for pot?

In my experience, people are not any worse drivers when on marijana, except that they panic when driving over bridges.

"picobrewery" is scrumptious.

I am scared shitless to drive stoned. I am terrible and I absolutely refuse to do so.

278: Likewise. Freeeeaaks me out, won't do it.

I schooled my kid in the fine art of Speaking to Police Officers because he a) is a member of a minority group; b) hangs with a motley group of friends [gay. straight, Asian, black, Latino, white, male, female, other], any combination of which is likely to annoy some random cop; and c) because, unless one is Paris Hilton, there's no guarantee that the LA constabulary's policy of shoot first/ask later won't be in force. Fortunately, the Offspring is default polite and not at all stupid.

Re: what is "drunk": The Offspring is Asian. He gets red-faced and plastered on far fewer drinks than I do, despite being male, taller and heavier. It is likely, therefore, that he suffers from the nonfunctional form of ALDH, an enzyme involed in alcohol metabolism. [Hell, I had a Cherokee friend who got falling-down-drunk on a single beer.] None of the BAC charts I've seen mention things like that - and I imagine most people aren't even aware of genetic influences on what "drunk" is.

My anecdatum from a cop friend of a friend is that if you absolutely must intoxicate yourself and then drive, he'd definitely prefer you to choose marijuana over alcohol.

The only difference I can tell if I drive stoned is that I stay much closer to the speed limit and am more likely to miss a turn from singing along with the stereo. And that driving is about 3x as enjoyable.

wasn't there a snowboarder back in the 90's who was disqualified from competition due to a failed piss test for pot?

You mean...gasp!...they didn't detect any?

Indeed, wasn't there a snowboarder back in the 90's who was disqualified from competition due to a failed piss test for pot?

Olympics gold medalist, IIRC. Pot is an illegal performance enhancing substance, like amphetamine.

I've, ahem, heard that driving stoned is MUCH safer than driving drunk, and can even improve your driving ability. But I think this varies massively by individual. Just don't get distracted if a really groovy song comes on the radio.

>can even improve your driving ability

I kinda doubt this, aside from the general improvement that comes from driving more slowly. However, I can believe that long-term smokers have no-to-negligible degradations of abilities so long as they aren't balls-to-the-wall blistered.

I've had lots of interactions with cops, as a citizen needing assistance (burgled, mugged), as a civil disobedience arrestee, as a demonstrator, as a trainer (LGBT sensitivity training), as a (now ex-) sister-in-law, and, in one profoundly weird experience in West Virginia, as an I-don't-know-what when a couple of cop cars screamed into a gas station, made my friends spread 'em with their hands on a still-hot car hood, ran our IDs, and drove off with no explanation.

My experience has been that though of course individual officers are all over the map, a lot of them have a hard time whenever someone doesn't immediately do what they're told or asks questions. Mostly, they aren't being fascists; they see questions or non-compliance as getting in the way of doing their job. (I say this based in part on my reading of various situations, but also based on conversations with cops in the trainings.) And in crowd control situations or anytime in high-crime cities, their vigilance meter can be turned up pretty high. And then sometimes they're just dicks who like throwing around their authority.

All that said, I'm with will on a clear and direct assertion of one's rights. Not that using a more indirect phrase is a betrayal of the Constitution, but I think it's good for cops to hear and good for us to be able to say "no."

Hey, gswift, I DO NOT CONSENT. There, I feel better.

He got his medal back by arguing that pot wasn't on the list of performance enhancing drugs.

||
What on earth does this mean?

Democratic officials tell ABC News that President-elect Obama has tapped former Rep. Leon Panetta, D-Calif., to serve as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

|>

286: I have limited experience with smoking pot, and I've never driven stoned. I can imagine it improving perfomance, though, by improving focus -- I could see getting into a "wow, did you ever really look at the road ahead of you while you're driving? I mean really look?" place that would have you driving with all your attention, rather than the usual half-in-the-background way people drive.

Pot is an illegal performance enhancing substance, like amphetamine.

Which is silly; allowances should be made for certain drugs. Is Dock Ellis' famous no-hitter any less an achievement for his having dropped acid earlier that day? On the contrary.

I drove once before coming down completely from a weed high. At 15 MPH, at 3AM, from Cambridge [MA] to West Newton [MA], which is about 7 miles. Scared the shit out of me, so I never did it again. Too much time dilation. I could swear it took me at least three days and that I was doing at least 70, no matter what my speedometer said.

I've never driven drunk, or even when buzzed - I think the being high-impaired on grass convinced me that it wouldn't be wise to take the chance. [Remember, I am of the ancient generation that preferred pot to booze. I didn't get drunk for the first time socially until about 5 years after I'd taken all sorts of drugs.* (I'm not counting the time my father gave me tastes of many different liquors at age 14, primarily to show me how easy it was to get drunk and how wretched a hang-over felt that next day. It wasn't till years later that I learnt not to mix seven different types of alcohol...)]

*I've also never driven on acid, peyote, hash, mesc or other psychedelic. I have, however, driven on Benadryl and some other meds that advise one to avoid operating heavy machinery. My bad.

289: That ABC News has been told by Democratic officials that Leon Panetta has been tapped by Obama to serve as CIA director?

That'd be my guess, anyway.

280.1: As my post was already too long, I didn't add that I wouldn't recommend the direct approach for everyone. We white middle-class chicks without tattoos can get away with murder, though.

293: I made a mental bet with myself that that would be the first response.

The great thing about a bet with yourself is YOU ALWAYS WIN.

Out of curiousity, is there anyone here who has actually refused permission to an officer to search their car or home, or at least been in that type of situation?

Pretty much weekly, at one point. A long time ago.

one profoundly weird experience in West Virginia, as an I-don't-know-what when a couple of cop cars screamed into a gas station, made my friends spread 'em with their hands on a still-hot car hood, ran our IDs, and drove off with no explanation

Lemme guess: older model Volvo with some kind of anti-war bumper sticker? That's probable cause under longstanding precedent in W.Va.

The officer has broad discretion whether to let you in or not

I've always wondered: if you are a US citizen can CBS permanently bar you from re-entering the country? I figure they can delay me for days or even prosecute me, but they can't keep me out. But maybe I am wrong.

295: It seems to mean that they can't find anyone with intelligence experience who isn't complicit in war crimes.

CBS s/b CBP.

300: No, but they can make your life a pain in the ass. The worry in our case is mostly due to non-citizenry (they could conceivably refuse to let in a permanent resident.)

can CBS permanently bar you from re-entering the country?

Morley Safer can do anything he wants to you.

We white middle-class chicks without tattoos can get away with murder, though.

Yeah, when I was worrying about being conciliatory above, I was projecting myself into someone more likely to get backlash. Matronly white women are probably about as safe as it gets, in this regard.

Morley Safer can do anything he wants to you
Is it because he is a white middle class chick without tattoos?

Don't blow his cover, TJ.

302: wasn't there a rendition case where a dual-citizen was refused entry?

I was projecting myself into someone

Hott.

307: Yeah. Our country is on crack lately.

[Comes back later.]

We white middle-class chicks without tattoos can get away with murder, though.

Or you can be a not-so-middle class, very white looking, tattoo-free, non-dope-smoking person and get pulled over/harassed like 40 times between the ages of 17 and 26.

You get used to it. Be polite, admit nothing, deny everything (very helpful if you haven't done anything which I hadn't for all of those), give away no information, allow no searches. Or perhaps, be polite and as utterly unhelpful as possible.

They ain't tryin' to help you, they're trying to help society, which is a set that contains no actual persons other than the police, prosecutors and officialdom.

max
['So go will.']

My getting-pulled-over frequency dropped to 0 when I exchanged the hoopty ride I had for something nicer. I'm male, no visible scars or tattoos.

They ain't tryin' to help you, they're trying to help society, which is a set that contains no actual persons other than the police, prosecutors and officialdom.

The first part is pretty on target, max, the last part wildly off. There are plenty of police who mentally separate people into two classes: those they `work for' (which is not "police, prosecutors and officialdom") and those who might be a problem for the first set. The latter may be discouraged by whatever means available that are unlikely to get you in trouble. The former is more more based on socio-economic status (perceived) than on connection to law enforcement or officialdom.

I've seen police officers turned from "tough-guy" assholes to fawning lickspittles by a change of company. Not saying this is the norm, mind, but there is some of it in most police I'd guess. Just like most people (but with bonus ability to act it out)

311: Aw, that just ain't right.

Hoopty riders gotta fight!
For their right!
To drive hoopty cars!

My getting-pulled-over frequency dropped to 0 when I exchanged the hoopty ride I had for something nicer.

My experience has been that cops simply do not perceive the existence of a Prius. It doesn't matter what I do, because whatever it is surely can't be "bad." It's like being invisible.

IME, it's also invisible to pedestrians. I've had more people than ever just walk the hell out in front of me.

Just like most people (but with bonus ability to act it out)

Ok. Police, prosecutors, officialdom and rich (white) people.

max
['Sorry, rich white people, I don't want you to feel left out.']

IME, it's also invisible to pedestrians. I've had more people than ever just walk the hell out in front of me.

Inaudible, too. Perhaps you could turn your radio up.

Ok. Police, prosecutors, officialdom and rich (white) people.

if you modify that to plausibly middle class (white-enough) people, we've got commity. `rich' is way too high a bar.

Robust: try giving it a bright red/yellow flame job and a loud stereo.

My experience has been that cops simply do not perceive the existence of a Prius.

So true. In our beat-up Tacoma, I'm a cop magnet. In our Prius, I'm a model citizen.

Just wait till the drug dealers figure that one out, Jesus.

316: Yep. I monitor traffic by listening a lot more than I realize -- I got better headphones last year and started walking in front of cars until I got used to them. If Prii are really that much quieter, I'd expect that lots of pedestrians would be oblivious around them.

Less-polluting, more energy-efficient drug dealers would be a net plus.

Less-polluting, more energy-efficient drug dealers would be a net plus

I am given to understand that "organic, sustainably produced marijuana" is already well established niche product in certain parts of California. The delivery via Prius would seem to be a mere evolutionary accretion.

One good way to piss off the CBP is to drive past their booth after having already been questioned by the US Border Patrol, and then assert, "But I didn't know that Canada had a border too!"

I just witnessed my tall blonde Californian roommate do this, and tried to correct the damage, but I was so sure we were both going to go to jail.

Also, apparently no one just jaunts from Toronto to Montreal and then back into New York, because we thoroughly confused a border patrol guard upon re-entry. "So....you just ... drove? For 12 hours? That's a long way, you know." "Yes, we know. We just drove it."

Does anyone know how responsive drug prices are to fluctuations in oil prices?

There was talk by the do gooders of having Prii being required to emit some kind of warning noise to alert the hearing impaired as to their approach.

if you modify that to plausibly middle class (white-enough) people, we've got commity.

{squint} I haven't noticed them be particularly nicer to middle-class people. There's some kind of points system. White is worth 25 points, new car is worth 15 points, female (alone) is worth 40 points, 'young enough to be my daughter' is good, nice tits add another 20 points. Old age is often worth some points but it varies, and only counts amoungst white people. Rich (ok, 'rich') as in a luxury car and/or a suit is worth about a 100, 150.

max
['At least as far as I can tell from the reactions in the paper, particularly when older white people get roughed up/arrested.']

What's the general view on driving while stoned, out of curiosity?

I spent several years working on a wrongful death case resulting from a stoned driver. You can guess my general view. I found the expert testimony particularly enlightening. Pot smokers do a very good job of driving a nice, straight line in lab experiments. The minute they are asked to multitask, however, they are a disaster. On the other hand, the elaborate discussion of pot-related euphoria and the general preferability of smoking as a means of self-titrating your intake of the drug made me wonder if my clean-cut, drug-free life had been a mistake. Euphoria sounds nice.

Does anyone know how responsive drug prices are to fluctuations in oil prices?

It's just like airline tickets or truck haulage rates: the basic price stays the same, but you pay a fuel surcharge that's linked to the Morgan Stanley on-highway diesel index.

325: You mean vision-impaired, yes? Hybrids are turning out to be a significant problem for blind folks.

Sorry, yes. Vision impaired. Not being a do gooder, I am often confused by whom to help.

Rich (ok, 'rich') as in a luxury car and/or a suit is worth about a 100, 150.

But caution! This rule is inverted if are driving with non-local plates within a 475-mile radius of Russell, Kentucky.

Will no one think of the anosmiacs?!

327 - This accords with my experience. Stoned people can do one thing relatively well, but as soon as there's any competition for attention they are useless. The mention upthread of listening to the radio while driving stoned makes me quite uncomfortable. In my experience that implies listening to music with 100% of one's attention while merely coincidentally being in charge of a ton of heavy machinery moving at high speed.

326: Cops, like everyone else, seem to have a separate category for "crazy old person who complains a lot." When I first moved to my new neighborhood I saw an officer do an admirable job of talking down such a person.

Maybe Bob or Emerson could talk about the way police treat them these days.

However, I can believe that long-term smokers have no-to-negligible degradations of abilities so long as they aren't balls-to-the-wall blistered.

Also learned from said expert testimony that long-the/frequent pot smokers actually get stoned with less and less drug because the THC is stored in fat and can build up over time. Not sure the implications for rapid weight-loss/breastfeeding/other-activities-that-release fat stores.

333: If they're sleep-deprived, they're just as dangerous driving as if they were drunk.

I haven't noticed them be particularly nicer to middle-class people.

I have, at least in ratio to poor people (of whatever color).

The "driving a new bmw" effect is simple: fear of lawyers. In many such situations, a good lawyer can choose to make a cops life difficult in much the same way that a cop can choose to make most peoples lives difficult. Most of us can't afford them.

What I'm talking about is different that fear of people who can fuck with my life issue, but rather the mental calculation of "is this someone I work for, or against", in an idealized sense. Establishing yourself on one side or the other of that line can radically alter their behaviour.

I should also note that this sort of categorization can be wildly different between, say, an urban cop talking to a couple of guys in a beat up 1972 charger, or a rural cop talking to a city slicker in a new bmw. Who you "work for" as an ideal has a lot to do with who you identify with abstractly, I suspect. So in that sense, upper/middle class or whatever is an imprecise threshold. It's more to do the the particular cops perception of relationship to you. That said, a small town sheriff is unlikely to abuse the relationship with a smartass in a bmw to the same degree an urban cop might with some kid hustling on his beat.

Again, I'm not trying to tar all police with the same brush, but I've seen a fair bit of behavior on the part of police that they would never have done to random middle class people, period. Only some of it was criminal, but all characterized by the shift in category I'm talking about.

but you pay a fuel surcharge that's linked to the Morgan Stanley on-highway diesel index

It used to be a simple hand-off, but now your dealer has to take out the laptop, pull up current fuel indices and enter figures into a spreadsheet. Kind of a buzzkill.

There was talk by the do gooders of having Prii being required to emit some kind of warning noise to alert the hearing impaired as to their approach.

I fucking HATE do gooders. You know that sound will be a piercing beep which will go off at the slightest provocation and wake you up at 5 AM every day. I still hate the people who required the loud beeping sound for trucks backing up. Also, train horns at every crossing, ugh.

Pretty much weekly, at one point. A long time ago.

(From 297 above, re actually refusing permission) How did that work out? Did they let you go, or interrogate you more intensely and find some excuse to search you anyway?

but now your dealer has to take out the laptop, pull up current fuel indices and enter figures into a spreadsheet.

But the better corners will bluetooth this right to your headset, no time lost.

Also learned from said expert testimony that long-the/frequent pot smokers actually get stoned with less and less drug because the THC is stored in fat and can build up over time.

I'm curious about the credentials of this so-called expert witness, because that's contrary to my experience, and to all the scare propaganda about how you will develop a tolerance and eventually have to smoke 50 J's a day to get out of bed.

Isn't the standard joke about driving stoned that a drunk driver will go right through a red light, but a stoned driver will wait for the stop sign to turn green?

frequent pot smokers actually get stoned with less and less drug

This does not accord at all with my personal experience. I'm not a biochemist, so assign my testimony the appropriate weight, but THC stored in fat isn't hitting your neuroreceptors when you smoke more, is it?

I think the expert was assuming you would be doing strenuous exercise while smoking. That's the only way the testimony even remotely makes sense.

but I've seen a fair bit of behavior on the part of police that they would never have done to random middle class people, period.

Ok! For once: comity. I can see where you're comin' from and I heartily endorse what you said. Moral: we live in a soft police state, with a prison system that aims to combine the 'best' features of Victorian workhouses with the southern plantation system (slave or otherwise).

max
['Yay.']

CA used to drive a 1970 Buick Electra 225. Cops always pulled us over.

How did that work out? Did they let you go, or interrogate you more intensely and find some excuse to search you anyway?

It worked out all over the map. Mostly accept it and let you go, sometimes fabricate a reason. Twice held for maximum reasonable time without charges (a day or so). The second of those was probably just a grudge though.

This was all part of a pretty general level of harassment though, just them letting us know they didn't like us and would have a go if they could. It was pretty mutual I guess.

Also, train horns at every crossing, ugh.

I used to live in an apartment that backed up to a train crossing. No big deal if you kept all doors and windows tightly sealed at all times, but just fucking try to sleep with the windows open on a lovely summer night.

As for the pot expert, I only know what he said. No personal experience at all through which to evaluate. I don't think the rebuttal expert challenged any of those points, though.

Also, train horns at every crossing, ugh.

I would love it if this could be safely repealed so, so much. And so would the two houses between us and the railroad crossing.

347: is that the one from the photo? Sweet!

But have you considered that the haircut, the leather jacket and the pleated blue jeans might have been as much a part of the profile as the car? (See the NYPD patrolman's manual under "Jersey kids in possession of laughably small quantities of really lame drugs, profile of".)

Around here, the same towns that want to get rid of train horns at grade crossings always seem to be the stingiest when it comes to shelling out for adequate gate-crossing hardware (to say nothing of actually rebuilding the crossing to be grade-separated).

349: He may have been referencing this research, though it isn't about fat storage of THC, but change in the number of neuroreceptors.

I don't think the rebuttal expert challenged any of those points, though.

"C'mon, man. You don't believe that shit, do you? I bet you've never smoked any really good stuff in your life! Have you ever been to Amsterdam? No? Let the record show that the expert witness is a total lame-o poser."

We've also been having the search consent issue with "random" searches at subway stations lately. So far, the people I know who have refused consent for the search have been permitted to leave the station (but not get on the train) without further harassment.

though it isn't about fat storage of THC, but change in the number of neuroreceptors.

iirc, the whole fat storage of drugs theory was bunk anyway.

355: Is there an actual ordinance that requires you to accept a search to get on the train?

Is there an actual ordinance that requires you to accept a search to get on the train?

Well, well, well. Looks like we got ourselves a lawyer here. Are you gettin' smart with me, Missy? Huh? Are you? I could have you in cuffs down at the station in a heartbeat, and I don't think you'd like what you'd find there...

351: Chicago! Not Jersey. Although that picture is from Annapolis. But roughly -- yes. The car was generally filled with folks in leather jackets whose hair was either too long (helpychalk) or too short (CA). Once the three of us + 4 others (the Buick had seatbelts -- and ashtrays -- for 7) were pulled over somewhere in upstate NY because the car was riding freakishly low. We told the cop we knew this and planned to attend to the shocks once in Chicago. The cop then very politely asked if we wouldn't mind his taking a peek in the trunk. We said sure.* He looked and then sent us on our way.

*Should we have said no? It was obviously well within our rights. It also no doubt would have meant a multi-hour delay.

357: Their policy does seem to be backed up by the courts; a challenge failed, and although that was specific to the 2004 DNC, I don't see that its reasoning wouldn't apply generally.

Further to 359: With 7 people in that car, it rode too low to go over speedbumps. We would have to stop and all get out of the car to get out of some parking lots.

Would fat cars make you more or less likely to get pulled?

Also (following links from 362), any list like this that doesn't include Fontana Labs is bullshit.

362: an aesthetic, if not moving, violation.

359: No, that was fine. I expect that was an immigration dealie; they wanted to know if you had some illegals in the trunk.

That happened to me once when we coming back from a camping trip in New Mexico when we were 17. We had all the gear in the back. The border patrol guy wanted to make sure we weren't smuggling illegals. I think he wanted to search but the guy driving had a lawyer for a Dad and so the guy driving refused and we went on our merry way.

Which was good because we had eight cases of beer in the trunk.

max
['And a bottle of whisky.']

361: This is on videotape. Perhaps I will upload it to flickr.

There's no "perhaps" about it.

iirc, the whole fat storage of drugs theory was bunk anyway.

This appears to be the original paper that claimed that THC was stored in fat. JSTOR link. Julius Axelrod, the senior author, won a Nobel, so it's probably not worth sneezing at a priori.

Of course, even if you accept that it's stored in fat—which seems to be the consensus based on my brief perusal—that doesn't answer the question of whether any psychoactive effects can be attributed specifically to the fat-stored THC. The authors' conclusion:

The importance of fat localization of drugs in explaining their duration of action has been shown for drugs such as thiopental (13), dibenamine (14), and DDT (15). These drugs show a similar biphasic disappearance curve from plasma, a high localization in fat, and a comparable rate of accumulation in fat with repeated administration. DDT reaches maximum levels in fat of man after 1 year of the normal amounts found in food (16). If the period of injection of Δ9THC had been extended over a longer time, the plateau for Δ9THC accumulation in fat might reach a much higher value than that reported in Fig. 1A. With starvation, DDT concentrations increase in rat brain because of mobilization from fat stores 1(17). It would be of interest to study this phenomenon in those chronic marihuana users who report flashback (18).

So, they admit they don't know. But this was 1973, so go fig. So I checked out a 2003 citing review, and I see this:

The lipophilicity of THC with high binding to tissue and in particular to fat causes a change of distribution pattern over time.[61] THC rapidly penetrates highly vascularised tissues, among them liver, heart, fat, lung, jejunum, kidney, spleen, mammary gland, placenta, adrenal cortex, muscle, thyroid and pituitary gland, resulting in a rapid decrease in plasma concentration.[62] Only about 1% of THC administered intravenously is found in the brain at the time of peak psychoactivity.[63] The relatively low concentration in the brain is probably due to high perfusion rate of the brain moving THC in and out of the brain rapidly.[64] Penetration of the metabolite 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC) into the brain seems to be faster and higher than that of the parent compound.[63,65] Thus, it can be expected that 11-OH-THC will significantly contribute to the overall central effects of THC, especially with oral use. Subsequently, intensive accumulation occurs in less vascularised tissues and finally in body fat,[66-68] the major long-term storage site, resulting in concentration ratios between fat and plasma of up to 104 : 1.[69] The exact composition of the material accumulated in fat is unknown,[47] among them being unaltered THC and its hydroxy metabolites.[68] A substantial proportion of the deposit in fat seems to consist of fatty acid conjugates of 11-OH-THC.[70,71]

So they think 11-OH-THC is responsible for a lot of the psychoactive effects, and that's probably a lot of what's stored in fat, and that stuff's going to diffuse back into the plasma over time. It seems for our purposes this leaves unanswered questions about whether it diffuses out rapidly enough to have an effect, and whether enough of it sticks around long enough to have the sort of chronic smoker effects described at the beginning of this discussion, and maybe those questions are answered elsewhere, but I'm done looking, as it's almost time for me to go see my shrink.

there was one meekins at that list 363

368: thanks for links. I did think about adding retroactively a "and remaining psychoactive" (obviously lots of things accumulate in fats) but didn't bother. Seems like things are still up in the air.

368: This is the beauty of expert testimony. I don't understand a word of the quoted bits, but when you say in plain English, "So this means they don't know... " I totally buy it.

Many years ago, coming back to the US from school in Quebec, I was confused as to why the US border dude kept asking me where I was born. I answered the same way each time. In French, as I abruptly realised...

From among the links at the link in 363, something truly in the spirit of Unfogged, which has been sadly lacking in the cock joke department lately. NSFW, if that's not obvious.

"organic, sustainably produced marijuana" is already well established niche product in certain parts of California. The delivery via Prius would seem to be a mere evolutionary accretion.

Leapfrogging development takes us straight to delivery by xtracycle.

Leapfrogging development takes us straight to delivery by xtracycle.

How much weed do you need? I don't think most dealers carry around 100 lbs at a time. I am pretty sure you could carry plenty on a regular bike.

Fat storage is why pee tests catch more stoners than meth freaks. Or used to, anyway. Maybe they've refined the meth tests.

374: Or, you know, you're my nephew and have a prescription card. You can get it in an Almond Joy bar for goodness sake.

Cargo route from the grower to the streetcorner middlemen? And they could add seasonal bouquets, like CSAs do.

379: pri-ups.

Also, in the spirit of the thread, BAC notwithstanding, it appears that if you work out really hard, one beer is enough for a really good buzz.

Cargo route from the grower to the streetcorner middlemen?

That might make sense.

it appears that if you work out really hard, one beer is enough for a really good buzz

Beer after a hard workout is a good time.

What are those cuckoo people called who run and drink? It's like a thing?

Hash House Harriers.

I know of a whole group who do an evening run 5-10 km ish and finish at a bar for beers....

385: Yes! Thank you.

Does anyone know how responsive drug prices are to fluctuations in oil prices?

no, but I do know that the British Columbia drug industry was more or less driven into bankruptcy by the C$/U$ exchange rate fluctuations last year.

Hash House Harriers were big in Taipei. They had a British Imperial feeling.

Ultimate players.

They had a British Imperial feeling.

That's the origin, anyway. Wiki claims '38 in malaysia.

no, but I do know that the British Columbia drug industry was more or less driven into bankruptcy by the C$/U$ exchange rate fluctuations last year.

Crying shame that, best hydroponic talent in the world is there. On second thought, they're probably ok. It's probably your artisanal, backwoods weed that's in trouble if at all. And with any luck the meth labs were wiped out.

"Do you know how fast you were going?"

How about: "I try to drive at a speed that's safe for the road and the conditions"? But really, isn't 'no' fine? Are you planning on going to court to challenge the radar?

Hash House Harriers ("The Drinking Club with a Running Problem") are all over the former British Empire and have expanded a bit beyond. Fun people, for the most part. Very convenient if you're in the Foreign Aid/Diplomatic community since they provide an instant social group when you drop into a new posting.

250

Out of curiousity, is there anyone here who has actually refused permission to an officer to search their car or home, or at least been in that type of situation?

While attending college and living in an off campus rooming house I was asked permission to search my room by a cop who claimed a fugitive had been seen running into the house. I granted permission and the cop promptly started hassling me about the (innocuous) contents of my medicine cabinet which I thought was out of line.

108

Hey gswift, how should a motorist answer when asked by a police officer at a traffic stop "Do you know how fast you were going?"?

How about "I'm not sure". Which you can later explain as not being sure at what point the officer clocked you.

There was talk by the do gooders of having Prii being required to emit some kind of warning noise

The do-gooders of the world will pry the Death Race 2000 crown from my cold, dead hands.

In truth, I'm already blasting the J-pop pretty loud. I don't know what else they could possibly want. I should get the flame decals, though. They'll make the ship Prius go faster.

I went on one of those pub runs with a running club once. It was five miles total, but you'd stop for a beer after each mile. I was totally trashed by the last bar, where you just park it and drink. It was so much fun to jog merrily along when you're trashed, though. I have a theory that beer is less sloshy in your stomach than water is.

We actually like prying things from cold, dead hands. It's more or less what we live for. An idle threat.

I severely injured my ankle once jogging drunk when I jumped down a flight of about 4 steps and landed with my foot cocked wrong. I couldn't walk normally for 10 days, and it's still a little tricky.

salted tea compress is good for injured swollen ankles, but i think i already told about that here

¡Uno, Dos, Tres, Cuatro!

I cannot post a response as I am unauthorized to do so.

max
['Ben won't let me.']

I have a theory that beer is less sloshy in your stomach than water is.

tequila, on the other hand, is quite sloshy.

The Hash House Harriers mark their routes with flour, among other things. It didn't occur to the local chapter that one of those other things might have been a better choice just days after the anthrax attacks, when their get-together threw the suburb where my wife teaches into high terror alert. (She called me from a traffic jam behind a police roadblock, having just spoken to one of the officers. "What's going on?" "White powder, ma'am.")

To merge two thread elements, I drove a car without a functioning speedometer for a year or so in my early 20s. After a period of adjustment, it really was quite liberating*. I also noticed that in certain altered states it made me prone to a particular and rather interesting trance-like state (potentially of dubious safety value, and which I've experienced on rare occasion in other circumstances like at the end of a very long day of driving) where I had the strong sense of my car being stationary while the world rushed by (a bit like a racing video game). I think getting into the state was facilitated by eliminating the frequent change of eye focus between the road and the speedometer.

*Though I never had the opportunity to answer the question of how fast did I think I had been going.

404: I would guess it had to do with focusing so exclusively on visual input that audio and tactile input were ignored, without which I'm sure it's very easy to get the sensation of being stationary. But I really have no clue.

White is worth 25 points, new car is worth 15 points, female (alone) is worth 40 points, 'young enough to be my daughter' is good, nice tits add another 20 points. Old age is often worth some points but it varies, and only counts amoungst white people. Rich (ok, 'rich') as in a luxury car and/or a suit is worth about a 100, 150.

I do not endorse this insanity of awarding more points for a luxury car than "young with nice tits".

405: I would guess it had to do with focusing so exclusively on visual input that audio and tactile input were ignored,

Maybe some of that as a trigger, although the audio and tactile were there, basically just an acute awareness of everything else moving relative to me— as if I were driving the car on a treadmill (a bumpy one at times) which turned the world beneath the car wheels.

391: I'd be surprised if the drug business had much exposure to oil prices, at least in the UK. Some drugs like pot are grown locally - the UK is a net exporter of cannabis - which would keep transport costs low, and the UK market prefers resin, not the plant parts that the US prefers, so it's a low-volume high-value business anyway, keeping transport costs low as a percentage of turnover. The same is even more true for imported drugs - and, since they're being smuggled, presumably the costs of transporting them are more along the lines of bribes, rather than airfreight charges. As dsquared points out, there's massive FX exposure as with any import-export type business. There'll be exposure to electricity prices for hydroponic ops, which use a huge amount of power. There's also credit risk - people being unable to pay - though the industry has pretty good enforcement strategies which keep recovery rates fairly high. But the biggest two will be market risk - drug prices are volatile depending on changes in fashion and the effectiveness of police operations, and also because there's massive opacity in the market - and operational risk - the police again.
I wonder if there's counterparty risk - did any drug dealers lose their laundered cash to Bernie Madoff?

"What's going on?" "White powder, ma'am."

"I know, can I have some?"

Did anyone in this thread question that maybe drunk driving deaths aren't at an unconscionable level? My understanding is that anytime anyone who is at an accident scene has had any alcohol it gets counted as an 'alcohol-related'?

from wiki: In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in "alcohol-related" collisions, representing 41 percent of total traffic deaths in the US. Over 500,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents in the US in 2003. NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or an occupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present. NHTSA specifically notes that "alcohol-related" does not necessarily mean a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.

i'd prefer more lenient punishment, although for this and other reasons making cannabis legal for all ages (ie, letting parents decide until one is 18) while keeping booze at 21 would make life much better.

There'll be exposure to electricity prices for hydroponic ops, which use a huge amount of power.

Which they often don't pay for, because high individual bills result in spot checks.

411: Ha, good point - so they just steal the power then?

(I can't believe that a thread about pot is going to grind to a halt before reaching 420 comments...)

What's the big deal with 420 comments?

did any drug dealers lose their laundered cash to Bernie Madoff?

A colleague who spends too much time with right wing media -- so this might be the source -- said he'd heard that Madoff had lost a bunch of money belonging to the Russian mafia. I have no idea whether this is in any way true, and considering my source, am inclined to discount it.

Who could be that stupid?

414: Bernie Madoff = Le Chiffre?

413: it's a drug culture reference, OR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)

A colleague who spends too much time with right wing media -- so this might be the source -- said he'd heard that Madoff had lost a bunch of money belonging to the Russian mafia. I have no idea whether this is in any way true, and considering my source, am inclined to discount it.

Other people are reporting something like this. Most people didn't invest with Madoff directly, but through investment advisors or mutual/hedge funds. It's not clear how many of these advisors thought Madoff was defrauding them or their clients. One of these advisors had clients who were in the Russian mafia, and has since disappeared from view.

Ha, good point - so they just steal the power then?

Yeah, it really depends where you are. It's not uncommon to find a rented house, ah, "load balancing" over the local neighborhood.

One of these advisors had clients who were in the Russian mafia, and has since disappeared from view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/business/07medici.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

are there any more factors that affect blood-alcohol absorption other than exercising just before your drinks?

i find my own tolerance can vary widely, depending on things like food intake, but also sleep levels, anxiety, happiness, tiredness. since i'm 5'3" and 120lbs and female, these things can put me into a pretty serious alcohol-sensitive state at times (e.g. woo! buzzed on one glass of red wine). these factors also make BAC seem pretty bogus. but i am wondering if there are any other factors that could affect things that i am missing?