A Man in California Is Fighting a Caffeine DUI, and the State Won't Back Down

Yahoo News ^ | 12/29/2016

[mc5cents]

Did you notice that DA’s eyes. She never blinked and she looked like she might be on some drugs!!

[Vendome]

Which is not the issue in the case

[TexasGator]

It absolutely is the issue.

[MayflowerMadam]

We ran like the wind from southern California in 2010. Beautiful place. Didn’t like the people. Too frickin’ PC and so diverse that we were the minority.

[samtheman]

Exactly the sort of petty tyrant who shouldn’t be allowed within a hundred yards of authority over other people.

---

Really.

[Vigilanteman]

Caffeine is a drug.

Sounds reasonable, on the surface. But so is, in that case, real black licorice made from anise, which is a drug or vitamin proved effective to building your immune system.

The point here is that the police can charge the user with a moving violation, but not caffeine use when the impairment level is not even legally defined as it is with alcohol.

This is the reason a guy quaffing down a Near Beer (1/4% alcohol, typically) can't be charged for such a low trace amount in his bloodstream.

[dirtymac]

‘Their’

[dirtymac]

How about DUI of global warming denying. this would of course be a felony in CA

[Larry Lucido]

So whadara ya sane?

[NobleFree]

not caffeine use when the impairment level is not even legally defined as it is with alcohol.

I believe DUI was illegal even before they had the ability to test for BAC.

[Lazamataz]

Argh

[dirtymac]

I agree. Words of contempt are sometimes hare to come up with.

[Lazamataz]

Gahr

[Vigilanteman]

Yes it was. But there were meaningful tests, walk a straight line, touch your index fingers together from shoulder length, etc. Not just some officer’s judgement.

[NobleFree]

there were meaningful tests, walk a straight line, touch your index fingers together from shoulder length, etc. Not just some officer’s judgement.

I'm not saying there was a solid case in this instance. I'm saying that "there is no law against driving under the influence of caffeine" is a red herring ... there is a law against driving while impaired to an appreciable degree by ANYTHING.

[zeugma]

Laz, there is a big difference to being for “law and order” and being a kneejerk supporter of the police state.

[reed13k]

Its a San Diego gig so not like it’s SF or LA. Got a call today about the non-CA gig .... have one more call to clear and then it should be a done deal....Once the ink dries I’m going to ensure that the CA company knows it’s strictly due to the regs and taxes...not the job or move. But gotta play it cool....

[Right Wing Assault]

Now CA should require Starbucks to apply for a license to sell a product that causes people to drive erratically.

BTW, the state should be required to determine how much caffeine is needed to cause erratic driving.

Maybe the guy was just having muscle spasms thinking about the high taxes in CA, not the caffeine, that causes the problem.