Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, January 16, 2012

Georgia state Rep. Kip Smith (R), who co-sponsored a bill to require public assistance recipients to take drug tests, was charged with DUI early Friday morning after being pulled over by police when he allegedly ran a red light. Smith blew into an intoximeter and registered .091 blood-alcohol content, over the legal limit of .08.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

When did alcohol become an illegal substance? It's not? Oh you're trying to equate drug usage with DUI (a crime called that even when the substance is not alcohol)? Driving under the influence is illegal, but it's a different crime than possessing illegal substances.

This is like saying "because he likes to pick up hookers, he shouldn't be able to tell us not to beat our wives."

When did alcohol become an illegal substance? It's not? Oh you're trying to equate drug usage with DUI (a crime called that even when the substance is not alcohol)? Driving under the influence is illegal, but it's a different crime than getting intoxicated with illegal substances.

This is like saying "because he likes to pick up hookers, he shouldn't be able to tell us not to beat our wives."

..weird, how did my old version also post?

Obviously this guy is also guilty of LUI (Legislating Under the Influence). He should be required to take drug tests and pass a breathalyzer to enter his office.

This is like saying "because he likes to pick up hookers, he shouldn't be able to tell us not to beat our wives."
POSTED BY SOHEIFOX

Man you are waaaaaaay off base with that analogy. The only reason it would be any way relatable to this scenario is the fact that both situations are illegal (though picking up a hooker shouldn't be).

If he is conducting any illegal activity involving drugs (yes I do mean alcohol), he shouldn't be in a position to dictate other's drug use behavior. Do you think he is in a position to tell his constituents not to drink and drive? Maybe as a public speaker touring with MADD, but sure as hell not as a public representative.

The argument you criticize is based off the assumption that draconian drug laws are wrong and should be overturned (which they actually currently are). Driving Under the Influence of alcohol has been proven to be far more dangerous than driving on any other DRUG. And yes, we categorize alcohol as a drug here because it is a drug. It's about being morally consistent - obviously the separation between Libertarianism and Republicanism, which you demonstrate incredibly well.

This story has been proven to be false.

Nice try dorks

Rusty,

I agree with most of your #5 but that bit about alcohol being worse than any other drug might take a bit of thought. I've encountered some bud in my youth that would have SEVERELY impacted my driving ability if it had not simultaneously made me forget I even had a car.

"This story has been proven to be false."

Please provide a link to a reputable source proving that DUI For Repug Sponsor Of Bill Calling For Drug Tests is false.

Thank you.

Driving Under the Influence of alcohol has been proven to be far more dangerous than driving on any other DRUG.

#5 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2012-01-15 06:00 PM

Do driving under the influence of alcohol is safer than driving under the influence of heroin, Quaalude's, or any other opium based drug?

IDIOT

Please provide a link to a reputable source proving that DUI For Repug Sponsor Of Bill Calling For Drug Tests is false, you bumbling POS.

Still a good idea to drug-test benefit recipients.

Still a good idea to drug-test benefit recipients.

#11 | Posted by rightisright

Yeah, and we can start with the Fortune 500.

Start with Congress, and publish the results. If you're not a gov't employee or on the public dole, though, don't see why it's much my business.

"If you're not a gov't employee or on the public dole,"

Everybody's on the public dole, especially corporate America. Drug test the board of directors and top management of the Fortune 500, the central planners of the U.S. economy. Drug test every politician who votes for drug testing. Drug test every LEO who carries guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc. Drug test every DEA agent. And every bounty hunter.

Oh.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-15 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag: "Yet I agree with anything reinheitsgebot says 200%"

Driving under the influence is illegal, but it's a different crime than getting intoxicated with illegal substances.

Yes, it is much worse since the DUI perp is endangering the lives of innocent drivers and pedestrians by their irresponsible actions.

Anyone who is so reckless with other peoples lives should lose their drivers license. Permanently.

Fine with me. That would have kept Kennedy off the roads. In fact, all the Kennedy's. And Zero's illegal immigrant uncle too.

Kip had a nip?

Fine with me.
#18 | Posted by rightisright

You'd force Speaker Boner to ride the bus with briefcases full of bribes, err, donations? That's just cruel. You just like to see him cry.

It's a .09. It's BARELY above the limit. The chance of causing an accident at a .09 is 1% greater than if you had no alcohol at all in your system.

He'll get a careless driving. Take a chemical assessment. Pay a fine. And go home. In some states, he'll also lose his driver's license for a month and need a ride home.

He meant "taste" testing...duh!

It's a .09. It's BARELY above the limit.

Don't care.

The limit is the limit. It is set for a reason. .1 used to be the limit, but they dropped it to .08.

Progressive effects of alcohol[1]
BAC (% by vol.) Behavior Impairment
0.010â€"0.029
Average individual appears
normal
Subtle effects that can be
detected with special tests
0.030â€"0.059
Mild euphoria
Relaxation
Joyousness
Talkativeness
Decreased inhibition
Concentration
0.06â€"0.09
Blunted feelings
Disinhibition
Extraversion
Reasoning
Depth perception
Peripheral vision
Glare recovery

Depth perception, peripheral vision, reasoning are all impaired from .06 - .09 and all are necessary to operate a motor vehicle.

It's a .09. It's BARELY above the limit.


I know she's dead your honor, but she is just BARELY dead.

Georgia state Rep. Kip Smith (R), who co-sponsored a bill to require public assistance recipients to take drug tests,

We should require all politicians to take drug tests.

#23 Or just barely pregnant.

It's a .09. It's BARELY above the limit. The chance of causing an accident at a .09 is 1% greater than if you had no alcohol at all in your system.

What are the odds of running a red light in front of a cop?

Georgia state Rep. Kip Smith (R), who co-sponsored a bill to require public assistance recipients to take drug tests,

We should require all politicians to take drug tests.

#24 | Posted by dr_dude2

Any body that gets State, Fed , Local Govt. or tax payer money in any way should have to take mandatory drug tests.

If you work for the tax payer even as a subcontractor you should be drug tested.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER......

"Any body that gets State, Fed , Local Govt. or tax payer money in any way should have to take mandatory drug tests.
If you work for the tax payer even as a subcontractor you should be drug tested."

Students with loans, corporations receiving subsidies and all their employees,everybody in the education industry, everybody in the aircraft industry, everybody on the auto industry,gun manufacturers, ship builders and steel and electronic suppliers, old farts, sick people on medicare, disabled people, the military and reserves, everybody who fills potholes, every cop, firefighter and a few million more.

Anybody NOT required to have a drug test, comrade Stalinkook?

DOPE2012

Depth perception, peripheral vision, reasoning are all impaired from .06 - .09 and all are necessary to operate a motor vehicle.
#22 | POSTED BY 726

It's a .09. It's BARELY above the limit.
I know she's dead your honor, but she is just BARELY dead.
#23 | POSTED BY KANREI

You've been spoon fed this crap by MADD. Statistics are statistics. It's a 1% increase in likelihood of an accident.

You want to know why its .08 and not .1? It's because they couldn't get convictions for a .1 to .12 when it was .1 BAC. SO they lowered it to .08 to get convictions. It's why they give you a careless driving your first time for a .08 - .10.

They've also renamed the law repeatedly in most states. It's gone from Driving While Intoxicated to Driving Under the Influence. It was too hard to get convictions when you had to prove Intoxication.

So does this mean that he will refuse his 'benefits' (aka Paycheck) from the Govt tit that he sucks from?

So does this mean that he will refuse his 'benefits' (aka Paycheck) from the Govt tit that he sucks from?

Of course. Tea baggers hold themselves to the high level of honesty and personal responsibility they expect from everyone else. You can see that by the way he only lied about how much he drank a few times.

I predict he will resign his seat and spend time working to stop drunk driving.

#1, "When did alcohol become an illegal substance?"
About 3 drinks before he stopped drinking.

"Driving under the influence is illegal, but it's a different crime than possessing illegal substances."

No crap, its a different crime from breaking and entering and chicken fucking too...what's your point my friend?

Did not place in the top half of your analogy class did ya?

Students with loans, corporations receiving subsidies and all their employees,everybody in the education industry, everybody in the aircraft industry, everybody on the auto industry,gun manufacturers, ship builders and steel and electronic suppliers, old farts, sick people on medicare, disabled people, the military and reserves, everybody who fills potholes, every cop, firefighter and a few million more.
Anybody NOT required to have a drug test, comrade Stalinkook?
DOPE2012

#28 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

Actually, we should start mandatory drug testing for all of the above.

If we find that's too large a group, then perhaps what we should do is look to the Constitution and narrow it down to people for whom a search warrant could be issued. Perhaps something like, oh, maybe "Specific Probable Cause" might be a good idea.

Either test all of the above groups, or follow the laws which protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. One way or the other. Anything less is unprincipled.

Cant just pick out a group here, and a group there.

Radical, I know.

What would the Founding Fathers say?

This is like saying "because he likes to pick up hookers, he shouldn't be able to tell us not to beat our wives."

#1 | Posted by soheifox

He can tell me anything he wants, I'm not likely to hear much of it though.

Will they test for prescription drugs too?

If not, the obvious will happen. People will simply switch to drugs harder to detect, and not necessarily illegal.

"If not, the obvious will happen. People will simply switch to ________ harder to detect"

So why is that the case with drugs, but not voter IDs?

"Any body that gets State, Fed , Local Govt. or tax payer money in any way should have to take mandatory drug tests.
If you work for the tax payer even as a subcontractor you should be drug tested."

Students with loans, corporations receiving subsidies and all their employees,everybody in the education industry, everybody in the aircraft industry, everybody on the auto industry,gun manufacturers, ship builders and steel and electronic suppliers, old farts, sick people on medicare, disabled people, the military and reserves, everybody who fills potholes, every cop, firefighter and a few million more.

Anybody NOT required to have a drug test, comrade Stalinkook?

DOPE 2012

#28 | Posted by northguy3

I did not not think I had to write it out, but yea you pretty much covered it.

Just to bring you up to speed there spankie, 3/4 of the people you listed in your attempt to be a smart ass (Well, ass actually) already get tested as part of their employment contract.

And a few Million more get tested randomly every year.
Just one little cheap drug test and the employer is free of you and any liability from your acts, your Workman's comp. case, your unemployment benefits, cobra benefits after your fired, your pension.

And of course if your dumb or stoned enough to fight it and it goes to any type of hearing, union, civil, arbitration and you lose, which you will.
They can then LEGALLY tell your next employer should the prospective new employer call the company that fired you WHY you were fired.
But you can always tell your prospective new employer that they can not contact your previous employer......you have that right....man your way to smart for every one.

This should be yet another lesson to you on just how f_ _ked-up and out of touch with the real world you really are.

And it's ...NOPE... TO THE HOPE DOPE IN NOVEMBER......

What would the Founding Fathers say?

#33 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

Cheers!

Some of the greatest politicians in history were drunks. USS Grant and Churchill come to mind.

Only low grade morons who think all civil servants earn $200,000 a year and welfare queens drive new caddies believe everybody should be tested. Of course, they are drunk when they say it. Just sad little underachievers jealous of everybody and everything.

So why is that the case with drugs, but not voter IDs?

#36 | Posted by Danforth

True, piss tests should not be required for IDs. We agree on that point.

"True, piss tests should not be required for IDs. We agree on that point."

Sorry, I should have spelled slower.

Why do you believe lawbreakers will be resourceful when it comes to drugs, but not when it comes to fake photo IDs?

What an asshole.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable