Nevada bill AB210 which requires someone arrested for first-offense drunken driving to go through an alcoholism evaluation if the person's blood-alcohol level was 0.15 or higher. That's nearly double Nevada's 0.08 blood-alcohol limit in DUI cases. The bill also lowers from 0.18 to 0.15 the alcohol concentration level in state law that requires a person to serve a sentence rather than go through a treatment program for a first-offense DUI.
I would wager that private prison owners are behind this legislation. You do know that there are privately owned jails and prisons don't you? If you're not aware, since 1971, privately owned jails and prisons have not only skyrocketed, but it is a multi-billion dollar business.
When I see legislation that calls for the incarceration of Americans instead of taking care of the problem or seeking a solution, I often fall back on this knowledge. [that private prisons are booming]Â Of course most legislation has a lobbyist attached to it.
When a prison can get $250,000 a year for one prisoner, how innocent do you think they are? Do you honestly think they don't try their every waking moment to not tamper with our laws and freedom?
Let's take a look at AB210. It focuses on first time offenders. One would think that the B.A.C. [blood alcohol content] of 0.15 would be more than adequate to accommodate for innocent people going to prison, but if you look into DUI with any measure of science, you will find that breathalyzer tests can be fudged, calibrations can be thrown off, and a systemic incentive to boost results is widespread and practiced. A police officer can boost a breathalyzer test by 0.12 by blocking the exhaust port on the machine. Improper care of a breathalyzer machine can completely derail test results. So when the law states 0.15, and makes a point to show it's nearly double the B.A.C. criminal level, remember those results can be tampered. Â
Next, the law goes on to not only requires a first time offender go to alcoholism evaluation [that means more money paid out by the defendant] but it lowers the B.A.C. threshold and requires a prison term instead of going to therapy or treatment.
For those not familiar with criminal laws and sentencing, normally the judge is given guidelines for sentencing and the discretion is left to him / her. DUI has a lot of required sentencing. [hmm are you thinking what I'm thinking?]
Finally, bills like these are pretty transparent to me what interest they are serving. They are not getting to the root of any problem. They are not protecting citizens more so than if they did not exist. Given the fact that there has yet to be proven that impairment can be shown by consuming various amounts of alcohol as it relates to the breathalyzer tests or B.A.C. in any laboratory tests, these laws do not protect citizens. Incarcerating first time offenders and removing their savings is nothing more than socialism at its worst.
I would wager that private prison owners are behind this legislation. You do know that there are privately owned jails and prisons don't you? If you're not aware, since 1971, privately owned jails and prisons have not only skyrocketed, but it is a multi-billion dollar business.
When I see legislation that calls for the incarceration of Americans instead of taking care of the problem or seeking a solution, I often fall back on this knowledge. [that private prisons are booming]Â Of course most legislation has a lobbyist attached to it.
When a prison can get $250,000 a year for one prisoner, how innocent do you think they are? Do you honestly think they don't try their every waking moment to not tamper with our laws and freedom?
Let's take a look at AB210. It focuses on first time offenders. One would think that the B.A.C. [blood alcohol content] of 0.15 would be more than adequate to accommodate for innocent people going to prison, but if you look into DUI with any measure of science, you will find that breathalyzer tests can be fudged, calibrations can be thrown off, and a systemic incentive to boost results is widespread and practiced. A police officer can boost a breathalyzer test by 0.12 by blocking the exhaust port on the machine. Improper care of a breathalyzer machine can completely derail test results. So when the law states 0.15, and makes a point to show it's nearly double the B.A.C. criminal level, remember those results can be tampered. Â
Next, the law goes on to not only requires a first time offender go to alcoholism evaluation [that means more money paid out by the defendant] but it lowers the B.A.C. threshold and requires a prison term instead of going to therapy or treatment.
For those not familiar with criminal laws and sentencing, normally the judge is given guidelines for sentencing and the discretion is left to him / her. DUI has a lot of required sentencing. [hmm are you thinking what I'm thinking?]
Finally, bills like these are pretty transparent to me what interest they are serving. They are not getting to the root of any problem. They are not protecting citizens more so than if they did not exist. Given the fact that there has yet to be proven that impairment can be shown by consuming various amounts of alcohol as it relates to the breathalyzer tests or B.A.C. in any laboratory tests, these laws do not protect citizens. Incarcerating first time offenders and removing their savings is nothing more than socialism at its worst.
SHARE
