You want to know why you got lucky? The stars were aligned in such a way that....sorry, this new mobile format is taking a bit to get used to.
anyway, I was pulled over the other night and had been drinking about four beers which would probably put me past the legal limit and the cops were asking me if I had been drinking and I denied doing so but I definitely didn't look sober as I had also smoked some too which my eyes really like to make obvious. and of course they were questioning as to whether or not I had marijuana, again which I denied. but I'm guessing I didn't really look drunk enough for them to go through all that trouble...
I guess I'm feeling I got really lucky. REALLY lucky and I don't know why they didn't impose any tests on me. anyone have an understanding of the laws involved and intentions of the police in this scenario? thanks.
You are an idiot quite frankly. How do you know your driving ability wasn't impaired? I would say you were totally lucky all the way around. Glad to know you are so ****y about it.no, my driving ability wasn't impaired. well, if it was more than if I had zero alcohol I'd still be less of a threat than most elderly and young people with licenced. but that's neither here not there not the point of the thread. but back to the point please, maybe, shall we?
I don't like name calling, but Ohiogal is right - you ARE an idiot.no, my driving ability wasn't impaired. well, if it was more than if I had zero alcohol I'd still be less of a threat than most elderly and young people with licenced.
no, my driving ability wasn't impaired. well, if it was more than if I had zero alcohol I'd still be less of a threat than most elderly and young people with licenced. but that's neither here not there not the point of the thread. but back to the point please, maybe, shall we?
Prob. because the particular police were incompetent.
You admittedly had been drinking and smoking (marijuana, I presume). You also admit to not being completely sober .. by definition, that would mean you were impaired. You WERE impaired, my friend. You may not believe you were, but as a matter of medical fact, you were. The question would not have been impairment, but whether you were too impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle.no, my driving ability wasn't impaired. well, if it was more than if I had zero alcohol I'd still be less of a threat than most elderly and young people with licenced. but that's neither here not there not the point of the thread. but back to the point please, maybe, shall we?
Is there a more probable reason?Brilliant assumption, of course that must be the reason.
If you are counting on an impaired individual's recollection of events as being accurate then maybe you are high too.Is there a more probable reason?