• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Saliva Tests at Routine Traffic Stops

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
My one counter to that is that in certain states, exceeding a particular speed is an automatic reckless driving charge, so you'd need to get rid of that link for your plan to work (though I think they should get rid of that link anyway). For example, if you are more than 20 over the speed limit in NC you get a reckless driving charge. There are plenty of people (myself included) who can do 90 or 100 on the interstate in a straight line all day long and it be much less reckless than some idiot who is swerving while texting or putting on makeup or getting road head at 45.
Click to expand...

ok, I an go along with that.
 
Deacs89 said:
ph did you graduate in 2000? or late 90's. Not sure why you think I went to Wake in the 80's apart from your ageist profiling. I thought you were against any form of profiling.
Click to expand...

Um, Deacs89
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
My one counter to that is that in certain states, exceeding a particular speed is an automatic reckless driving charge, so you'd need to get rid of that link for your plan to work (though I think they should get rid of that link anyway). For example, if you are more than 20 over the speed limit in NC you get a reckless driving charge. There are plenty of people (myself included) who can do 90 or 100 on the interstate in a straight line all day long and it be much less reckless than some idiot who is swerving while texting or putting on makeup or getting road head at 45.
Click to expand...
Lots of people considered legally drunk can do that as well. I talked to a woman on a plane one time who worked at a treatment clinic who said a dude used to regularly show up driving his car blowing a 0.22.

I'm not sure I agree with his solution...but WakeandBake's point is pretty legit. When you look at drunk driving, the real danger is really >0.16 which is why NC has the second designation. The risk slope goes up dramatically. Before that, the risk is pretty much flat and there is little difference between say 0.07 and 0.09. 0.08 is pretty arbitrary...which is why it used to be 0.10 and a conviction contingent on showing some sort of impairment while driving, not just a blood metric. When you look at risks of talking on a cell phone, it's equivalent to driving at a 0.08....texting 0.16...so if you've done either, you've driven the equivalent of drunk (or really drunk). A vast majority of DUI arrests and convictions happen way below 0.16 where statistically they are of low risk to themselves or others. There are of course incidents below 0.16, and combining risk factors..drinking and texting...is a factor but the data are the data.

We don't really understand the true risks of other drugs so I'm not sure how zero tolerance could be justified.
 
PhDeac said:
His neg rep to me read like someone who saw Back to the Future summer before his freshman year.
Click to expand...

Ph I neg rep'd you bc I always gave you the benefit of the doubt but after time you end up proving that you're a bit of a dick. I like you but def a bit of a dick.
 
Deacs89 said:
So cop pulls you me over for broken license plate - sticks swab in my mouth? and it comes back that I am high? Should I be upset at that? Do we want me on the road?

Now one poster mentioned they may be able to mess with the swab and that would concern me but wouldn't we be worried about that now with the breathalyzers? I think cops are much more inclined to harass by making you do a sobriety test and them as the sole judge than a saliva test. Regardless if your drunk or high gtf off the road. This isn't just a cash grab thousands of innocent people are dying because of it. More people die from this than any white cop shooting black man. #alllivesmatter
Click to expand...

Damn. I had a few paragraphs typed out with stats/math/studies and then I clicked the wrong button and lost it all.

It boils down to this: I don't believe the intrusion on privacy and potential for corruption that results from sobriety checkpoints, and certainly not from roadside saliva testing, is a worthwhile tradeoff for saving 1500-2500 lives nationwide (using the best case studies from specific areas and applying their success rate to some sort of nationwide implementation of a checkpoint system for a full year). But hey, I'm a libertarian, so I value freedom over safety more than many. I believe there are other, less intrusive, measures that can be taken (education, stiffer penalties, more targeting policing/patrolling, etc) to reduce DWI deaths without being forced to be interrogated, have my mouth swabbed and be treated suspiciously just because I happen to be driving down the road.
 
Last edited:
Wait, what if I'm driving with a 0.17 BAC while texting and eating a sandwich?
 
RacerDeac said:
Damn. I had a few paragraphs typed out with stats/math/studies and then I clicked the wrong button and lost it all.

It boils down to this: I don't believe the intrusion on privacy and potential for corruption that results from sobriety checkpoints, and certainly not from roadside saliva testing, is a worthwhile tradeoff for saving 1500-2500 lives nationwide (using the best case studies from specific areas and applying their success rate to some sort of nationwide implementation of a checkpoint system for a full year). But hey, I'm a libertarian, so I value freedom over safety more than many. I believe there are other, less intrusive, measures that can be taken (education, stiffer penalties, more targeting policing/patrolling, etc) to reduce DWI deaths without being forced to be interrogated, have my mouth swabbed and be treated suspiciously just because I happen to be driving down the road.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is ok to drive while under the influence of illicit drugs. I assume the answer is no but can't be sure with your last post. So currently there really is no way of testing this. So is your answer better education and stiffer fines to stop people from doing something we have no method of testing?
 
Deacs89 said:
Ph I neg rep'd you bc I always gave you the benefit of the doubt but after time you end up proving that you're a bit of a dick. I like you but def a bit of a dick.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with liking a bit of dick.
 
Deacs89 said:
Do you think it is ok to drive while under the influence of illicit drugs.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I believe in freedom so long as it doesn't infringe on others. Getting drunk and sharing the road with others crosses that line.

Deacs89 said:
So currently there really is no way of testing this. So is your answer better education and stiffer fines to stop people from doing something we have no method of testing?
Click to expand...

Yes. Testing is reactive, not proactive. By the time you test someone, you've already either pulled them over for driving erratically, or you've forced them into a corral because you didn't like the way they answered your questions when you interrogated them at a traffic stop. I'd rather concentrate on keeping inebriated drivers off the road, period, and spend less time implementing methods to test and inconvenience a larger body of innocent people in hopes of catching a few more who are guilty.
 
people should be allowed to drive with an open container
 
RacerDeac said:
Of course not. I believe in freedom so long as it doesn't infringe on others. Getting drunk and sharing the road with others crosses that line.



Yes. Testing is reactive, not proactive. By the time you test someone, you've already either pulled them over for driving erratically, or you've forced them into a corral because you didn't like the way they answered your questions when you interrogated them at a traffic stop. I'd rather concentrate on keeping inebriated drivers off the road, period, and spend less time implementing methods to test and inconvenience a larger body of innocent people in hopes of catching a few more who are guilty.
Click to expand...

So you believe that by the time you pull them over for driving erratically it is too late and we are only being reactive? How do you propose we keep drivers off the road? can you expand on that. And once we put your system in place should we just trust that it worked and never reactively test to make sure?
 
Deacs89 said:
Do you think it is ok to drive while under the influence of illicit drugs. I assume the answer is no but can't be sure with your last post. So currently there really is no way of testing this. So is your answer better education and stiffer fines to stop people from doing something we have no method of testing?
Click to expand...

Which ones? Who drives worse, the guy who took a bong hit or the middle aged mom who has been popping Valiums and Xanax with a prescription all day every day? The whole thing is bullshit.


Reckless driving is the charge in either instance.
 
WakeandBake said:
Which ones? Who drives worse, the guy who took a bong hit or the middle aged mom who has been popping Valiums and Xanax with a prescription all day every day? The whole thing is bullshit.


Reckless driving is the charge in either instance.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing w&b
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top