• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

DUIs also include prescription drugs

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
DUIs also include prescription drugs
Former candidate faces charges
By KELLY NIX
The Salinas Californian
Monday, January 19, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol and illegal drugs aren't the only things that can impair safe driving. Prescription drugs can, too -- and the penalties are just as severe.

Charges filed last week against Monterey County Sheriff's Deputy Stephen Sapiro highlight the risk involved in driving while under their influence.

"Drugs are drugs," said Salinas police Sgt. Bob Eggers. "Whether it's legal or illegal, it doesn't matter to us."

Sapiro, a former candidate for sheriff, was impaired by a type of benzodiazepine -- which has a tranquilizing effect -- in November when his truck struck a car turning from Salinas Avenue onto Reservation Road, county prosecutors say.

The other driver was critically injured, and her three children were treated for minor injuries.

Managing Deputy District Attorney Ed Hazel said about 5 percent to 10 percent of DUI charges filed in the county target those who drove while under the influence of legal or illegal drugs.

"That could be from Valium to marijuana to methamphetamine," Hazel said Friday.

Depending on several factors, charges can be misdemeanors or felonies. Penalties range from probation to prison, he said.

Because Sapiro also was charged with a multiple-victim enhancement, he faces a maximum of six years in prison if convicted. He has been on paid administrative leave since the accident.

Eggers said well-intentioned motorists often are oblivious to the dangers of driving while under the influence of a prescription medication.

"You could have back surgery and be issued a pain killer and think you are legal," he said. "And next thing you know you are pulled over for driving under the influence.

"If it impairs your ability, you can't do it."

Patty Nguyen, a pharmacist at Longs Drug at 1140 S. Main St., said patients are warned of the dangers of driving and using strong prescription drugs such as Vicodin, Valium, Xanax and Codeine.

"We counsel them and tell them that this medication may cause you to be drowsy," Nguyen said. "We always tell them they should not drive, but some people say it's OK."

Sticker labels placed on the pill bottles also warn patients of drowsiness, dizziness and the dangers of driving while using the medication, she said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that only 15 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes had their blood-alcohol content tested, suggesting that the incidence of driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs has been underestimated.

One reason is that many California Highway Patrol and police officers aren't trained to recognize people under the influence of drugs, Eggers said.

To counter that, a drug recognition expert or DRE is often called to a scene when an officer suspects someone is under the influence of a substance other than alcohol, he said.

After arresting a suspected DUI driver, police send a urine sample to a state Department of Justice lab where it's screened for drugs, Eggers said.

The Salinas Police Department only has one such certified expert, but Eggers said officials would like to hire more.


Originally published Monday, January 19, 2004

Source
 
this makes sense actually. You shouldnt be driving if you are not aware enough to do so. I dont care whether you're on oxycontin or heroin or vodka, If your driving is bad enough to endanger other peoples lives, there should be a punishment.
 
a buddy of mine got a DUI in FL, he passed the roadside test, and blew a .03, but his xanax script got him!!! Didn't help that he also had some weed in his pocket.
 
I agree in principle that the legality (or lack thereof) of a substance should have NOTHING to do with whether or not you get arrested for driving under the influence. But just being under the influence of a drug should NOT automatically mean you are impaired beyond your ability to drive responsibly and legally. Some people have to take certain drugs for medical conditions and those drugs WILL reduce their alertness and reaction time. And anybody under the influence of most illegal stimulants will likely be MORE alert.

I don't want any impaired drivers sharing the roads with me, but their driving should be the best indicator of whether or not they are impaired. If they are weaving or ignore traffic signals or get into an accident, etc. and are found to be under the influence of a substance, then it's reasonable to conclude that the substance is impairing their driving ability and they should be charged. But just because somebody tests positive for a substance, they should not automatically get a DUI.
 
i dont see what everyones freaking obsession with driving is. if ur high, dont drive.

i dont even think it should be legal to drive under the influence of marijuana. ive been stoned enough that i could bearly hold my head up before. where can we legally draw the limit?

there are other methods of transportation. bike, feet, taxi, train, bus, etc. i think people on vicodin shouldnt be driving just the same as people drinking alchohol. weather or not you get caught doing it is one thing, but once ur caught and its proven without a doubt u were under the influence while driving (kinda hard to do at this present time for some drugs) you need to be reprimanded to discourage you from doing it again.
 
^^^ Yes Wood, that would be the common sense approach, however there are many dumb fucks out there who get behind the wheel on many substances. I am even wary of driving after drinking cough syrup cause I know it makes me jumpy and irritable (hello road rage!)

;)
 
i dont see what everyones freaking obsession with driving is. if ur high, dont drive.
My "obsession" (if that's what you want to call it) with defending my right to drive began when our legal system became obsessed with its crusade to make our streets safe for us by targetting people driving "under the influence."

I am NOT defending "drunk drivers" or anybody who creates a serious safety hazard on our roadways. But I know people who are worse drivers sober than I ever was after having a few drinks. I would prefer a more sensible approach that treats us like responsible adults, lets us make own own decisions about when its ok to drive or not, and hold us accountable if and when need be.

I personally would not drive after smoking ANY weed at all because it impairs me. But I know potheads who can drive, do complex intellectual work and perform demanding physical tasks that require good coordination while high. They can handle it just fine and should not be arrested JUST because they have cannaboids in their system.

where can we legally draw the limit?

When it impairs your ability to drive safely. If you are weaving, ignoring traffic signals, driving erratically or dangerously, then by all means ARREST the person, give them an appropriate punishment, and make them attend a substance abuse program.

I am even wary of driving after drinking cough syrup cause I know it makes me jumpy and irritable

That's YOU! And I commend you for recognizing the kind of effect cough syrup has on you and avoiding driving while under its influence. But it does NOT have the kind of effect on ME. So I don't think a law banning ALL person driving on cough syrup is necessary.
 
^^^
The issue here is how to determine if a person is capable of safe driving under the influence of certain drugs ? This is the original question they posed when they made drinking and driving illegal.

My uncle drinks like a fish, and he is the safest driver on the road, while a FOAF can have two beers and drives like a fucking maniac.

Same goes for other substances, but how are the police supposed to determine if particular drug is making you an unsafe driver ?

That's why we make laws that punish people under influence of drugs while driving because that is the only way (for now) to deal with the problem.

Another friend of mine drives after rolling all the time and he is a great safe driver, on the other hand I would never drive after rolling so how are the cops supposed to determine who is a safe driver and who is not ?

I see a lot of wacko drivers on the road every day, running stop lights, red lights , tailgating and doing other stupid shit, and I always wonder "Is this guy/gal High right now or is he just an asshole ???"
 
AfterGlow said:
But just being under the influence of a drug should NOT automatically mean you are impaired beyond your ability to drive responsibly and legally. . . . But just because somebody tests positive for a substance, they should not automatically get a DUI.

Bingo! Excellent points!

Imagine you lose your mother in a car accident because some dumbass decided to take a bunch of pills and drive to the store. Imagine justice not being served because that person wasn't "officially intoxicated" by alcohol.

Speaking of high... :p
 
Isn't there a defense against criminal charges due to someone being under the influence? This does not apply to drunk drivers, because it is a defense that I believe is only applicable to people who are under the influence due to something that they couldn't control... .like taking their prescription medicine.
 
^^^ You mean you have no control over taking pills even if they are prescribed ? Any pill that COULD affect your ability to oprate a vehicle comes with a huge set of warnings to make sure you know how it affects you before you attempt to drive.

The only way this law could be applied ( I think) is if you have a a heart-attack while driving and cause an accidedent and kill somebody, then it really was not your fault.


I don't care what kind of drugs people take and how fucked up people become, all the power to you !
But for god's sake, please don't drive while fucked up!

:p
 
If you take medication and you dont know that it will fuck you up .. that could be a defense. For instance, someone that has never taken a benzo in their life and are ignorant to drugs reacts slow while driving and hits someone.. that could be a defense i believe.. I mean I KNOW there is a defense for people who are on meds but I dont know how in depth it goes.
 
^ Yeah but the first thing they tell you when you begin to take a new drug is something along the lines of: "DO NOT DRIVE UNTIL YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS DRUGS EFFECTS". And you know what they say: ignorance is not a defence.
 
To counter that, a drug recognition expert or DRE is often called to a scene when an officer suspects someone is under the influence of a substance other than alcohol, he said.

If they ever need some more of these, I think Bluelighters would be excellent candidates ;)

As far as the original subject goes, I have mixed feelings. I recognize that most any substance will impair someone's driving ability, whether they realize it or not ... but often this impairment is so minimal as to be nothing.

At the same time, there are plenty of people out there constantly speeding, driving recklessly, running stop signs and lights, and endangering us all .. and if they somehow get pulled over they'll probably only get a warning, while the officer who pulls over the careful stoner for failure to use a turn signal will haul in a DUI case.

Senior Citizens are probably the most dangerous drivers of all .. and God knows how many meds they are on ...
 
Top