5 ms·
Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional
by notch656c 4y ago
Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.
- RC_ITR 4y ago>Even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up. Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a certain time in a condition of sound mind.
- notch656c 4y agoThe order is rarely against intoxication but rather consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting intoxicated would violate many of these orders.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tedunangst 4y agoAre those restrictions common in cases that don't allegedly involve intoxication? For the most part, the federal restrictions I've seen usually have a purported connection to the criminal activity.
- edgyquant 4y agoThis is pedanticism. When people don’t drink wine they never get drunk. Period.
- notch656c 4y agoThat's a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome
- RC_ITR 4y agoHow can alcohol consumption not lead to intoxication? Society has decided that for most people, low-level intoxication is no big deal, but I’d argue it is for people accused of crimes. Even one beer could make fleeing just appealing enough.