Drug Legalization Tangent

[ballen0351]

Thats intersting. I've never heard of a DRE. Are there any other LEOs here that are familiar with that? Now you mention that if the officer doesnt get consent, theres no way to prove the driver was under the influence of anything. Further in your post, you said that the DRE can take the person to the hospital. What if the driver doesnt consent? What makes the DRE any more special than the officer who stopped the guy initially?

While the officer who made the initial stop may not be able to physically prove the driver smoked, chances are, they'll still be able to get DUI, if the guy is not passing field tests. Of course, theres a good chance the officer will come up with other charges to add on, ie: drugs in the car, other mv violations, etc.

If the person refuses to give blood then the DRE can testify of all his findings. A DRE receives about 6 to 8 months of specialized training. He spends alot of time with Doctors in ER's and a Central Lock up in Baltimore city. They Learn about how drugs effect things like body temp, heart rates, blood pressure, and a bunch of other medical test I’m not sure of them all because I’ve never been to the school. So if the person refuses the blood test the DRE has all the other evidence.

Im not saying you cant win a case without test results like I said that was just a short explanation on a complicated process. There are ways to win it depends on how detailed your report is, how well you testify, and if you get a States Atty. that’s willing to try the case. Most of the time the courts are so busy that the state just drops the charge if you dont have a test result.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

On the subject of enforcing driving while high, some states (New Mexico is one) have changed the statute to Driving While Impaired. If they can demonstrate that you're not operating on all cylinders, you can be charged and convicted. This applies to alcohol, drugs, even driving while severely fatigued.

That seems like all we'd need. It's not about why you're so messed up you shouldn't be behind the wheel. It's about that you're so messed up.

 

[Blade96]

wow, what a mouthful, Bill M! A lot of info there thanks.

although i dont agree that insurance should be illegal and everybody pay for their own health care.

You're right also though, i would feel sorry for the smoker who developed cancer but inside I would still think, You sob, maybe if you hadnt of smoked that wouldnt have happened.

 

[Steve]

I would agree with you that this is one of the areas where the federal government can do some good; a pure Libertarian point of view would insist that people are on their own to find out what's in the food they eat, and that government should keep their mitts out of the process.

But most food (not restaurant food, but grocery store food) is labeled now, is it not?

Not really. There's a list of unrecognizable ingredients in most processed foods, but that's not really even what I'm talking about. I'm suggesting that misleading labeling should be eliminated. Changing the names of foods that are bad for you to a name that people don't know so that you can start a PR blitz and bill is as healthy. Implying that something is healthy when it's not.

This is most egregious in restaurants, though... particularly fast food. Taking something that should be healthy, like a salad, and adding so much crap to it that it's actually worse for you than the burger. Or Jamba Juice, where they imply that adding a scoop of protein powder to a PB&J Smoothie makes it healthy. That's really what I'm talking about.

It boils down for me to people eating what they want, but in order for them to do that, they should really know what they're eating.

It may be what we need, but what's your enforcement mechanism, or do you just think we *should* do it, and if we don't, then we don't? Not attacking, just curious what you intend by the statement.

not sure what you're driving at here. Are you suggesting that I need to draw up a business plan? I think that, in general, food manufacturers add sugar to everything and it's unnecessary. Can I say it in a way that is more clear?

The problems that I have seen is that sometimes people who are in agreement about the problem are in disagreement about the solution.

That's for sure. Or if it gets political, one side torpedoes a plan even if it's good, just because it was the other side's idea.

Let's take calories for fast food. OK, so let's say we pass a law that says that fast food restaurants have to list their calories, fat and sugar contents, etc, on the menus inside the restaurant, in big huge letters.

And people ignore it and eat what they want.

Now what?

Do we shrug and say we did our best, and people have the right to eat crap if they want to, so long as they know what it is they're eating?

Do we forcibly 'educate' them because we think they just don't get it?

Do we make the rules more draconian, perhaps forcing customers to sign a waiver before ordering a hamburger?

Or do we shut down the restaurant or force them to stop serving the food we think is bad for people?

I think you've completely misunderstood my post. Fundamentally. You seem to believe that I think we need to make everyone healthier. As i said earlier, what I actually intend is that people eat what they want, but know what they're eating. I don't think people should have to have a degree in organic chemistry to understand whether they're eating something that is healthy or not. I think of the line from the show where Jamie Oliver went into a school cafeteria and was trying to tell the lunch ladies that chicken nuggets aren't healthy. Lunch Lady's reply: "Look at the ingredients. First ingredient: chicken." Like that was it. Chicken first ingredient = healthy.

I am with you when it comes to knowing that we shovel crap into our faces and it's going to cost us our health as well as the money it is going to cost us in health care bills. I'm not that certain what to do about it.

Any thoughts?

The caloric information on the menu has been great up here. Too soon to see whether it's had any impact, but at least you know when you eat a burrito exactly how many calories you're really eating. for me, simply addressing labels will be very helpful.

 

[MJS]

If the person refuses to give blood then the DRE can testify of all his findings. A DRE receives about 6 to 8 months of specialized training. He spends alot of time with Doctors in ER's and a Central Lock up in Baltimore city. They Learn about how drugs effect things like body temp, heart rates, blood pressure, and a bunch of other medical test I’m not sure of them all because I’ve never been to the school. So if the person refuses the blood test the DRE has all the other evidence.

So basically if the guy refuses, the DRE is really no better than the regular officer, aside from the special training that he's had. Its a 50-50 shot that the judge and/or jury, will throw the case or actually follow thru with charges.

Im not saying you cant win a case without test results like I said that was just a short explanation on a complicated process. There are ways to win it depends on how detailed your report is, how well you testify, and if you get a States Atty. that’s willing to try the case. Most of the time the courts are so busy that the state just drops the charge if you dont have a test result.

Good point.

 

[Steve]

I am a conservative. I do not ordinarily believe in the goodness or efficacy of government-run anything. In an ideal world, insurance would be illegal; people would pay for their own health care costs. However, such a world does not exist, nor can it realistically.

I see far too many entangling issues with health care costs; Gordian knots which challenge anyone to fix. I would therefore, reluctantly, tend to come down on the side of the Alexandrian solution. Cut the knot by eliminating the players.

National health care; nationalized industry. All providers, all hospitals, all drug companies nationalized. Everyone insured just by being citizens. No exceptions. All risks covered. That also means 'death panels'. By that I mean that since there are limits to everything, there will be established limits to how much effort and money will be spent on a given person's needed care, based on things like their age. 95 year-old patients are not going to get heart transplants, for example.

There are many problems with this solution; I don't claim it will cure all ills (no pun intended). It damages an issue near and dear to my heart - that of state sovereignty. It runs the risk of people with unforeseen issues being put into classifications that deny them care unfairly - although this happens now too. It can cause doctors to choose to work outside the USA instead of working for the government, it can cause drug companies to choose to relocate too instead of becoming part of the government. Some drugs and care and expertise will necessarily come from outside the USA anyway, we're not the whole enchilada when it comes to those things; and the government will still have to figure out ways to pay for whatever is needed out of taxpayer dollars.

But in the end, I think I prefer an all-or-nothing solution. Either leave health care alone - broken, damaged, and expensive as it is now - or go all the way and nationalize the whole thing. Half-measures cannot do anything for us but make things worse, I believe.

Largely for the same reasons, I've been on the side of single payer myself. We have too many hands in the pot, literally. Great post, Bill.