Nick is off to party with his buddy but he asked me to rearrange the thread about drinking and driving. Hence the edits.

Update: I somehow have managed to lose my post in which I quote Eskapa warning that Nal exacerbates the impairment of coordination caused by alcohol, according to Sinclair's studies, P. 117. But THIS IS CRITICAL.

DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE ON THE NAL/ALCOHOL COMBINATION, EVEN IF YOU ARE UNDER THE LEGAL LIMIT. YOU WILL BE MORE IMPAIRED THAN ON ALCOHOL ALONE.

Last year a local politician running for election in our area, after a grueling day of campaigning, was spotted by an officer at a local hardware store. He appeared to be impaired. The officer followed him out to his vehicle, then followed his vehicle which he pulled over shortly after he got on the road. The politician blew a 0.00% and was arrested for DUI. That's not a typo. He had zero alcohol and no evidence of drug use, but the officer felt he was too impaired to drive and arrested him.

Moral of the story: Don't drive while impaired in any way.

BTW, the charges were eventually dropped due to lack of evidence.

Bob

PS I moved this post from a now defunct thread.

Holy crap, Bob! How is this possible? I mean, I have 6 kids on some days, and I'm so tired I'm ready to crawl into the nearest manhole. How can law enforcement bring dui charges on someone who has no alcohol in his system?!

I've actually heard of of similar stories, but not with 0BAC, but under the legal limit. I think the law gives police pretty wide latitude to nail you if they think you are impaired or you piss them off or both.

However, I would guess that if you are under the legal limit and they arrest you anyway, you'd have a pretty good defense to fight the charge.

The "legal limit" is, in all 50 states, just a presumptive indicator of impairment. But you can be "UI" if you are below .08.

I guess I didn't get my point across: Please, do NOT assume you are okay to drive if you are below .08. What I had in the post I lost was that in a well-publicized case where I live, a man was convicted ot dui-enhanced motor vehicle homicide after he but blew only .03 following a tragic accident.

If you show signs of impairment, and have been drinking a couple, (even if they don't discover you have nal in your blood), you could be convicted of dui or worse.

More to the point: Sinclair's research shows that nal increases impairment from alcohol. We don't want to drive while we are impaired. So we should not drive on nal/al. Period.

While I totally agree with Lena on not drinking while driving, the bigger picture scares me -- that police have the power to claim that you're "under the influence" when you're not. Being charged with a DUI has huge ramifications, even if you're innocent and haven't had a drop. Hiring an attorney, paying court fees, going through all the red tape....seems to me law enforcement has been given way too much freedom in that regard.

Just a vent. I live in a rather small community and I've heard of this abuse of power over and over.

I seem to be having trouble making my point: You are more impaired under nal+al than you would be under just al. Eskapa, p. 117.

Please do not risk driving while on nal+al.

Edit: This is not a response to the very valid posts on this thread but I don't want this critical message to get lost.

So true - experience speaks! I felt a little zingier on NAL almost immediately & after all this time still do...it's hard sometimes to stop myself from running out to get takeout nearby or something, but NOOOOOOOOOOO. I know all too well how expensive & devastating a DUI conviction can be. I have said it elsewhere on here, but taking a taxi to NYC would be a cheaper and easier than getting a DUI. UGH -


Also as an FYI, the herbal supplement "Kudzo" has supposedly been taken for centuries to reduce the desire for alcohol. Reason why is it increases the effect of alcohol in your system. The assumption is then most people would slow down or stop early on. Be careful & cautious w/ all these things.