Guilty of refusing to test in ohio

[Shay-Pari'e]

So that mean that as of right now, today, it is in fact legal to drink WHILE driving in Montana.

THANK YOU!!!

Don't get overly excited!!!!! You can only drive the horse.

 

[Veronica1228]

Oh please, Veronica. Silence is taking a side too. You were unable or unwilling to express your thoughts.



Why you live for something like that is beyond me but Veronica, likewise, you amuse me too. One DUI lawyer? No, there many, many other DUI lawyers - and lawyers in general - that echo that one DUI lawyer's sentiment. Who better than a DUI lawyer that understands DUI laws?? Then there's a lot of lawyers who like the current state of the DUI laws because it offers them a great deal of financial security.

But I don't think you care, because to see the truth would change everything you think you stand for. You think you like those laws because you don't understand those very laws could affect you or someone you love even after they didn't drink and drive. The fact that it appears you can accept innocent people being arrested for DUI because it helps the overall cause, is scary. It's not about drunk drivers anymore, now it's about people who drive within 24 hours of taking a perfectly legal drug. Do you know what drugs they are? There are hundreds of them that can cause someone to get a DUI. Yet if you don't know what they all are, how do expect everyone else to know? Doctors don't tell patients. In fact my doctor thinks I'm crazy because I mentioned my prescription as being possibly illegal to drive after taking. But yet it falls under the "illegal to drive" guidelines. I know those guidelines, do you? Do you know how to obey those laws? Does your family - your friends?

You can turn your nose up at me for wanting to PREVENT people from getting accused of DUI. You can think my need to stop people from getting into the situation of a DUI is a waste of time. But it just may be someone you love one day facing the crime of DUI when they didn't actually drink or know the perfectly legal drug they're taking caused them to considered DUI.

I wasn't going to respond to you because as I said before, there is no reason for me to debate this issue. If I were trying to change the laws, or even sway people to my way of thinking it would be worthwhile, but I have no reason to do this. However, I decided to respond because although I don't agree with your views, I do respect your right to express them. I also think you make a much better argument then your friend who can only trade insults and provide links rather than trying to communicate intelligent points in his own words or think for himself.

You are correct that I am unwilling (not unable) to express my thoughts regarding AHA's husband's issue. I am not going to be cajoled into changing my mind on that front either. I do have an opinion, but it is off topic, so I am not going to share it. You may as well drop it right now.

You already know my views of what you want to think of as Gestapo tactics by law enforcement in regards to DUI issues. I can concede that there may be some law enforcement officials who take it a bit far when someone who is 100% sober is arrested for DUI, however, this would not happen if there wasn't a huge problem with this type of crime in this country. Peoples keep insisting in driving while intoxicated. Believe me. I live in Milwaukee. I know. Have you ever heard the expression, "a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel"? Well that is the case here. While the current strict DUI laws might seem extreme and repungnant to you, they seem absolutely necessary to me. No, I wouldn't like to be arrested for DUI if I was innocent. Who would? However, these laws save lives.

In this country we fly our flag and sing the Star Spangled Banner and wave the Constitution around like a shield. I love this country as much as anyone, and I am grateful for the freedoms that we possess that other countries do not. However, "freedom" is a myth. Nothing is free. Everything has a price. Sometimes I would argue that the price is too high. No, I am not suggesting that we trade the rights fought for us by our founding fathers to gain a little safety. I am just saying that things are not always black and white. There has to be a middle ground where we can retain our freedom, but still protect the lives of our citizens. Right now that is what I feel our current DUI laws are doing. It's a precarious balancing act, but it has to be done. The fact that both sides are somewhat dissatisfied proves that we are in the gray zone right now.

 

[CdwJava]

Don't get overly excited!!!!! You can only drive the horse.

And they are losing ground ... now the law to actually have an open container is being repealed in October - as you indicated.

I'll get concerned if I see states start to raise BAC levels for 'per se' intoxication, or start reducing punishments wholesale.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

And so what kind of legal advice was AHA offering when she jumped in about her husband the drunk, voluntarily jumping into a car with his buddy the drunk and allowing him to drive DUI?

Probably the same advice I tried to point out to you by nothing that it is not illegal to "allow" someone to drive drunk. "I am not my brother's keeper" and all that. Yet oddly, you take a "blame the victim" approach anyway. Surprised, I'm not.

 

[AHA]

And so what kind of legal advice was AHA offering when she jumped in about her husband the drunk, voluntarily jumping into a car with his buddy the drunk and allowing him to drive DUI?

That had absolutely NOTHING to do with the original post.

I would appreciate if you stopped obsessing about me, you are an alcoholic driver, me and my husband are not and I'm not going to apologise for that.
Since you have nothing to say other than involving me in every one of your replies, seem like you don't have any legal advice to produce either. Pot calling the kettle black.
Just leave me alone and get on with the OP's question ok!!?????

You go ahead and drive your drunk @ss around, you'll get yours coming one day, I promise.

 

[RIDL_Prez]

Probably the same advice I tried to point out to you by nothing that it is not illegal to "allow" someone to drive drunk.

I've already posted the law in Michigan showing that it IS illegal to allow someone to drive drunk.

Looks like you're in DeNile again.

 

[RIDL_Prez]

I would appreciate if you stopped obsessing about me, you are an alcoholic driver, me and my husband are not and I'm not going to apologise for that.

It's your husband, the DRUNK, who allowed his buddy, THE DRUNK to drive DUI. And YOU are defending a drunk.

Sounds like the alcoholism is in your family.

 

[RIDL_Prez]

I'll get concerned if I see states start to raise BAC levels for 'per se' intoxication, or start reducing punishments wholesale.

Well Michigan is actually looking at a law to allow people to have open container's in their cars to accomodate people who buy a bottle of wine for dinner and want to take the leftovers home.

 

[AHA]

It's your husband, the DRUNK, who allowed his buddy, THE DRUNK to drive DUI. And YOU are defending a drunk.

Sounds like the alcoholism is in your family.

And I guess you never go to a party every now and then and drink, because you drink everyday I'm sure.

MY HUSBAND WASN'T DRIVING, YOU MORON!!!! Since your best excuse for the drunk driver is calling my husband an alcoholic, you have more problems than I imagined.
It must be hell being a rotten drunk like you and joining and enjoying all the drunk drivers. I'm glad I don't live in your area.

NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[You Are Guilty]

I've already posted the law in Michigan showing that it IS illegal to allow someone to drive drunk.

Looks like you're in DeNile again.

While I realize the alcohol has already addled the four working brain cells you have left and you will never be able to grasp this concept, for those readers who have made it this far, I want to make it very clear, that despite the ramblings of this lunatic, there is no legal duty, in any state, that requires you to "stop" people from driving drunk.

The only caveat is if you are the registered owner of a car - you do have an obligation not to give it to a drunk driver. However, if your friend is drunk, and wants to drive himself home in his car, no law, anywhere, requires that you even lift so much as your pinky to try and stop him.

Now, you may resume your incessant babbling.

 

[CdwJava]

Well Michigan is actually looking at a law to allow people to have open container's in their cars to accomodate people who buy a bottle of wine for dinner and want to take the leftovers home.

In CA they are looking at a law to split the state in two ... looking and enacting are different animals.

- Carl

 

[RIDL_Prez]

MY HUSBAND WASN'T DRIVING, YOU MORON!!!!

Nope. But he committed a crime when he ALLOWED a DUI! And he was drunk too.

Maybe you should go to al-anon! They might help you get over your anger for being married to such a DRUNK!

 

[RIDL_Prez]

I want to make it very clear, that despite the ramblings of this lunatic, there is no legal duty, in any state, that requires you to "stop" people from driving drunk.

So who's car was it that AHA's husband's DRUNK friend was driving???? Didn't she say that he was TOO DRUNK to drive and so ALLOWED his friend to drive? So who's car was it????

I'm betting it was her husband's car and he ALLOWED a DUI!!!! He's a criminal. She's the angry wife of an alcoholic who is seriously in need of therapy. I bet he beats her too. And she probably loves it. That would explain her inability to follow a conversation and post something meaningful. No gray matter left after all those beatings.

 

[RIDL_Prez]

In CA they are looking at a law to split the state in two ... looking and enacting are different animals.

You know what, it's not like me to be wrong about something, let alone admit to it. But in this case I HAVE to admit that in fact I did make a grave error. They are not in fact looking into it. They have already passed it.

Hmmmmm....Imagine THAT!!!

Senate Bill 0199 (2005)
Public Act 21 of 2005 (Effective: 5/19/2005)

Sponsors Judson Gilbert - (primary)
Beverly S Hammerstrom , Alan Sanborn , Michelle McManus , Ron Jelinek , Mike Goschka , Mike Bishop , Tom George , Jim Barcia , Michael Switalski

Categories Liquor, retail sales ; Liquor, wine ; Food, restaurants

Liquor; retail sales; removal of a partially consumed bottle of wine from an establishment licensed to sell wine; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 1021 of 1998 PA 58 (MCL 436.2021).


Date Journal Action
2/15/2005 SJ 11 Pg. 134 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS AND REGULATORY REFORM
3/15/2005 SJ 23 Pg. 289 REPORTED FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-2
3/15/2005 SJ 23 Pg. 289 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-2
3/23/2005 SJ 27 Pg. 345 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE S-2 AND AMENDMENT(S)
3/23/2005 SJ 27 Pg. 345 SUBSTITUTE S-2 AS AMENDED CONCURRED IN
3/23/2005 SJ 27 Pg. 345 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH SUBSTITUTE S-2 AS AMENDED
3/24/2005 SJ 28 Pg. 362 PASSED ROLL CALL # 61 YEAS 36 NAYS 1 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0
3/24/2005 HJ 26 Pg. 358 referred to Committee on Regulatory Reform
4/26/2005 HJ 33 Pg. 493 reported with recommendation with substitute H-1
4/26/2005 HJ 33 Pg. 493 referred to second reading
4/28/2005 HJ 35 Pg. 520 substitute H-1 adopted
4/28/2005 HJ 35 Pg. 520 placed on third reading
5/3/2005 HJ 36 Pg. 543 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call # 98 Yeas 109 Nays 0
5/3/2005 HJ 36 Pg. 543 inserted full title
5/3/2005 HJ 36 Pg. 543 returned to Senate
5/4/2005 SJ 39 Pg. 533 HOUSE INSERTED FULL TITLE
5/4/2005 SJ 39 Pg. 533 LAID OVER ONE DAY UNDER THE RULES
5/5/2005 SJ 40 Pg. 548 HOUSE SUBSTITUTE H-1 CONCURRED IN
5/5/2005 SJ 40 Pg. 548 PASSED ROLL CALL # 103 YEAS 37 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0
5/5/2005 SJ 40 Pg. 548 GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT
5/5/2005 SJ 40 Pg. 548 FULL TITLE AGREED TO
5/5/2005 SJ 40 Pg. 548 ORDERED ENROLLED
5/11/2005 SJ 42 Pg. 592 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 5/10/2005 @ 9:30 AM
5/24/2005 SJ 47 Pg. 677 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR 5/19/2005 @ 9:50 AM
5/24/2005 SJ 47 Pg. 677 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE 5/19/2005 @ 1:15 PM
5/24/2005 SJ 47 Pg. 677 ASSIGNED PA 0021'05 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

 

[CdwJava]

You know what, it's not like me to be wrong about something, let alone admit to it. But in this case I HAVE to admit that in fact I did make a grave error. They are not in fact looking into it. They have already passed it.

Hmmmmm....Imagine THAT!!!

Oh goodie ... people that finish a bottle of wine may have it-recorked and travel home with it.

That changes things ... how?

It certainly doesn't allow them to have it open or be drinking in the car.

This law doesn't faze me at all ... in fact, it's good for those who drink fine wine. Good for them! Having been in the restaurant biz for many years, I can honestly feel for those who felt compelled to drink their fine wine in its entirety at one sitting, or, had to risk citation taking it home.

However, to be honest, I have never known anyone traveling home with a bottle of wine after dinner to be cited. Maybe its happened - but that was not the legislative intent of the law out here.

So, bully for MI.

- Carl

436.2021 Sale or serving of food; removal of liquor from premises; removal of partially consumed bottle of wine from premises; class A or B hotel.
Sec. 1021.

(1) The commission shall not require a licensee to sell or serve food to a purchaser of alcoholic liquor. The commission shall not require a class A hotel or class B hotel to provide food services to registered guests or to the public.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a purchaser shall not remove alcoholic liquor sold by a vendor for consumption on the premises from those premises.

(3) A vendor licensed to sell wine on the premises may allow an individual who has purchased a meal and who has purchased and partially consumed a bottle of wine with the meal, to remove the partially consumed bottle from the premises upon departure. This subsection does not allow the removal of any additional unopened bottles of wine unless the vendor is licensed as a specially designated merchant. The licensee or the licensee's clerk, agent, or employee shall reinsert a cork so that the top of the cork is level with the lip of the bottle. The transportation or possession of the partially consumed bottle of wine shall be in compliance with section 624a of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.624a.

(4) This act and rules promulgated under this act do not prevent a class A or B hotel designed to attract and accommodate tourists and visitors in a resort area from allowing its invitees or guests to possess or consume, or both, on or about its premises, alcoholic liquor purchased by the invitee or guest from an off-premises retailer, and does not prevent a guest or invitee from entering and exiting the licensed premises with alcoholic liquor purchased from an off-premises retailer.