Warren Norred

What Does The Zero Tolerance Law State?

• Marvin Harvey
• 20.12.2022
• 0
• 28

Enforcement of zero tolerance laws in the United States Ferguson, Susan A. / Fields, Michele / Voas, Robert B. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety (CD-ROM) Master File By 1998 all states had enacted zero tolerance laws, which prohibit people younger than 21 from driving with any positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

A review of the law was undertaken to determine whether variations in zero tolerance laws might affect their enforcement. Five states were selected (California, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) that appeared to differ in the ease with which the laws could be enforced. Detailed information on enforcement practices was collected in interviews with police officers and motor vehicle officials.

The zero tolerance laws in these states have done little to change the way police identify underage drinking drivers. Consequently, these laws rarely are being enforced independently of the laws against impaired driving aimed at all ages. However, if an officer stops an underage drinking driver, some provisions of the laws can make it easier to issue a zero tolerance citation.

For example, in most states an evidentiary test for BAC is required to prove a zero tolerance violation, but in a number of states the implied consent law requires either an arrest for driving while impaired (DWI) or probably cause for an arrest before such a test can be administered. Thus, underage offenders with low BACs cannot be arrested for zero tolerance.

By contrast, in California officers can use results from preliminary breath test (PBT) units at the roadside as evidence of zero tolerance if an underage driver is suspected of drinking. Factors that reduce the likelihood of enforcement are discussed.

What is an example of a zero tolerance policy?

In light of terrifying outbreaks of school violence, nearly all public schools have embraced a “zero-tolerance policy” to deter students from malicious behavior. As the American Bar Association (ABA) describes, ‘”Zero tolerance’ is the phrase that describes America’s response to student misbehavior,

1. Zero tolerance means that a school will automatically and severely punish a student for a variety of infractions.” Common student infractions include carrying a weapon to school, engaging in threatening forms of physical or verbal behavior, and bullying other students.
2. However, does the zero-tolerance policy work in public schools? The ABA argues that the zero-tolerance approach has devastatingly turned into a “one size fits all solution” for problems that need more personal interpretation and subjective assessment.

For example, misunderstandings and common minor infractions are penalized under the large umbrella of zero tolerance – leading to overreactions and potentially unjust punishments. Subsequently, many parents and community members are questioning if other types of behavior policies would be more appropriate in keeping public school campuses safe.

• This TEDx Talk discusses the impact of zero-tolerance on teenagers.
• What are Zero Tolerance Policies? Zero-tolerance policies are rules that specifically target the most serious risks facing the safety of students in public schools.
• For example, students who bring any weapon to school can be punished under zero-tolerance restrictions.

While these types of policies were intended to help create a more widespread environment of safety and awareness, many parents and teachers argue that innocent students are being unjustly punished. Specifically, students who are unintentionally and often unknowingly breaking the rules are punished severely under the zero-tolerance policy.

Adding to this, the zero-tolerance rules do not acknowledge individual students’ emotional, intellectual, or learning disabilities. Oftentimes, misbehavior cases involving students with disabilities arise from their own personal challenges – and not due to their intent to cause harm or malice towards others.

Did You Know Series: Zero Tolerance Law

Are Innocent Students Being Punished? As community members pose questions to find out whether or not innocent students are being punished under zero-tolerance policies, the answer is a saddening “yes.” While public schools are certainly not seeking out innocent students in order to enforce harsh or unfair consequences, cases of guiltless reprimands are still coming to the surface.

In Louisiana, a 12-year-old diagnosed with a hyperactive disorder warned her peers not to eat all of the potatoes, or “‘I’m going to get you.”‘ This simple statement led to a two-day suspension, citing that the student had made “terroristic threats” towards others. In Texas, a 13-year-old boy was required to write a scary story for a Halloween-based assignment. His story involved a character who shot students at a school. Consequently, the teenager was arrested and spent six days in jail before the police confirmed that no crime was committed. In Florida, a 14-year-old special needs student was referred to the police after the principal discovered that the child allegedly stole $2 from a classmate. The child was charged with “strong-armed robbery” and was held in an adult jail for six weeks. When a CBS “60 Minutes” news crew arrived to report this case, the charges pending were fortunately dropped.

This video from ABC News reports on the effects of zero-tolerance on young people. While these cases are certainly severe and uncommon examples, many individuals are still being punished for even seemingly smaller infractions. In fact, as NBC News further reports, there have been widespread cases involving children bringing toy guns to school, unaware that their toy guns would be an offense to schools’ zero-tolerance rules.

1. Specifically, one 10-year-old Georgia student was faced with potential expulsion and long-term juvenile detention after bringing a toy gun to school.
2. According to the student, he brought the toy gun to class because it reminded him of pictures from his history textbook, as the class had been studying various wars, soldiers, and leaders from the past.

Are the Zero Tolerance Policies Too Harsh? While all public school zero-tolerance policies are created and enforced to help protect all students from potential threats, many schools are reevaluating the implications of these standards. As the ABA seeks to remind school leaders, each student’s infraction should still be individually analyzed.

• Furthermore, school leaders must be “cautious about inappropriately creating a cloud of fear over every student in every classroom across the country.
• In the case of youth violence, it is important to note that, statistically speaking, schools are among the safest places for children to be.” Yet, despite the criticism of zero-tolerance rules, according to data from the United States Justice Policy Institute and the Department of Education, crime and violence have decreased by 30 percent in all public schools since 1990.

Furthermore, less than 1 percent of all violent incidents involving younger teens or adolescents occur near or on school property. This video discusses zero-tolerance policies on the school-to-prison pipeline. With this celebrated shift towards increased school and student safety, experts and community members continue to debate: are zero-tolerance policies helping school safety efforts or hurting innocent kids? Questions? Contact us on Facebook.

Is zero tolerance a policy?

What is a Zero Tolerance Policy? – Generally, a zero-tolerance policy is used to describe an “all-or-nothing” approach to problems. In the workplace, such policies involve taking action against employees for even minor instances of misconduct or rule-breaking.

What does zero-tolerance in the workplace mean?

A zero-tolerance policy draws a clear line that an employer does not condone certain behaviors, whether that’s discrimination, sexual harassment, theft or use of racial slurs. And employers should most definitely set such standards and create a workplace culture that upholds those values.

Does zero tolerance always mean termination?

Arguments for a Zero Tolerance Process. – As a start, no company should tolerate unlawful harassment, dishonesty, workplace violence, bullying or discrimination. However, having a Zero or “No” Tolerance for such behavior does not have to mean that any prescribed act automatically triggers dismissal – that’s the problem.

1. Nevertheless, let’s discuss some of the reasons for a Zero Tolerance process.
2. Stop unlawful conduct well by nipping it in the bud in its early stages.
3. Fear and respect are as important to rule enforcement and maintain a workplace as rewards and positive motivation.
4. Some commentators have likened Zero Tolerance processes to NYC’s successful “Broken Windows” strategy to reduce crime.

The theory is that if we maintained an urban environment in a well-ordered manner and every “broken window” repaired ( i.e,, every act of public disorder addressed), this might stop an escalation into more serious crime – “if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken.” Set the tone.

What are two observed outcomes of zero-tolerance policies?

The Impact of Zero Tolerance Policies on the Relation Between Educational Attainment and Crime In the United States alone, there are over two million incarcerated individuals and the number continues to rise over time (The Sentencing Project, 2014). In fact, the number of people in prison has increased by 500% over the past four decades (The Sentencing Project, 2014).

Seventy percent of the incarcerated population does not have a high school degree (Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). This could be due, in part, to the many zero-tolerance policies that have been instituted in schools since the 1990s. Zero-tolerance policies mandate specific consequences to a variety of behaviors, which are intended to be applied without consideration of situational factors, severity of the behavior, or any other factor that could influence the decision to behave poorly (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Mental Health America, 2014).

Because zero-tolerance policies operate under the assumption that removing students who misbehave from school will discourage their classmates from behaving similarly, often, the consequence handed down is suspension or expulsion (Teske, 2011). However, though the intention of zero tolerance policies is to ensure that the school environment is conducive to learning and is safe for every student, suspension or expulsion could predispose children to criminal behavior in the future (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Maynard, Salas-Wright, & Vaughn, 2015).

In fact, between 1991, when zero-tolerance policies were first implemented, and 1998, incarceration rates increased by 47% in the United States (Gainsborough & Maur, 2000), suggesting a possible link between zero-tolerance policies and students’ criminal trajectories (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Gainsborough & Maur; 2000).

This link is facilitated by the educational disruption caused by suspension or expulsion, which removes students from the education system and prohibits them from benefiting from the protective effects of education on crime. Therefore, policies and interventions must be developed that keep students in the school environment, while properly addressing youths’ behavioral issues and promoting the wellbeing of youth and their communities.

Zero Tolerance Policies The concept of “zero-tolerance” found its origin during the 1980s’ “war on drugs,” a State and Federal effort to address the drug problem in the United States (Teske, 2011). The ensuing increase in juvenile arrests for violent crimes that were believed to be associated with drugs in the late 1980s resulted in a societal belief that juveniles were dangerous and that zero-tolerance policies were necessary (Kang-Brown, Trone, Fratello, & Daftary-Kapur, 2013).

In an effort to protect against dangerous delinquents in schools, the Gun-Free Schools Act was established in 1994. The Act required schools to expel students who brought a weapon to school for a minimum of a year (Kang-Brown et al., 2013). The public opinion of zero-tolerance policies like the Gun-Free Schools Act became increasingly positive in the wake of the Columbine school shooting in 1999, as more people began to feel that juveniles were capable of large-scale violence (Kang-Brown et al., 2013).

1. By the late 1990s, 79% of US schools had instituted zero-tolerance policies and many had metal detectors and security guards, as well (Kang-Brown et al., 2013).
2. Zero-tolerance policies were eventually extended to apply to a wide range of behaviors, most of which were less severe than bringing a weapon to school.

These included small infractions like smoking, possessing drugs like Midol and aspirin, and general disruption (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002; Teske, 2011). In other words, these policies were often misapplied to behaviors that posed little threat to school safety (Stader, 2004).

1. As a result, the annual number of suspensions in students nearly doubled from 1974 to 2001, increasing from 1.7 million suspensions to 3.1 million suspensions, respectively (Teske, 2011).
2. Suspension and expulsion, the typical consequences demanded by zero-tolerance policies, disrupt a student’s education by removing them from school.

This disruption can often becomes a more permanent departure from education, in general. In fact, students who are suspended for longer periods of time drop out of school more than those who are suspended for shorter periods (Arcia, 2006). The students who drop out are no longer able to benefit from the protective elements of education, including keeping adolescents off the streets and fostering positive peer relationships, both of which can increase the likelihood that they will commit crime in the future (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Maynard et al., 2015).

Despite the potential harm that these policies can lead to, schools still choose to implement them as part of their disciplinary policies, because they are offered federal funding in exchange for compliance (Kang-Brown et al., 2013). Schools rely on this funding in order to provide their students with the resources that they need to succeed academically (US Department of Education, 2012).

It is important to note that these policies do not affect every student in the same way. In fact, zero-tolerance policies have been shown to negatively impact a disproportionate number of students of color (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2002; Kaufman et al., 2001).

• One explanation for this is that schools in low-income communities serving minority students are often more reliant on the funding they receive for implanting zero-tolerance policies (Berwick, 2015; National Center for Children in Poverty, 2014; US Department of Education, 2012).
• Further, African American students are suspended three times more than are white students (Berwick, 2015).

For example, although students found in possession of weapons at school belong to all racial categories, students of color are more often suspended for this infraction than are white students (Kaufman et al., 2001; Stader, 2004). In addition, low-income students are five times more likely to quit high school compared to middle-income students, and six times more likely than their high-income peers, in general (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011).

Furthermore, areas of low economic status also exhibit higher rates of crime than areas of higher economic status (Freeman, 1996; Thornberry & Farnworth, 1982). Low-income communities may experience higher rates of dropping-out and crime compared to more affluent communities because when students fail academically, the likelihood that they will commit crime increases (Farrington, Gallagher, Morley, St.

Ledger, & West, 1986). This is partially because these students are not able to benefit from the protective mechanisms built into the school setting (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Maynard et al., 2015). Educational Attainment as a Protective Factor Given zero-tolerance policies’ potential influence on a student’s educational trajectory, it is necessary to understand the association between educational attainment and future outcomes, specifically criminal behavior.

Past research suggests that, at both the high school and college levels, there is a significant relation between education and criminal history, such that educational attainment acts as a protective factor for criminal behavior (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Hansen, 2003; Maynard et al., 2015). Students who are enrolled in school may commit less crime because they benefit from the supervision and daily structure provided in the school setting (Lochner & Moretti, 2014).

Students also have the opportunity to learn ethical lessons from their teachers and administration (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002). Additionally, adolescents form friendships at school that are particularly important to their development, as the social support systems created during this developmental period highly influence an individual’s decisions (Farrell, et al., 2004; Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Marrow, 1999).

1. In fact, adolescents are more influenced by their friendships than their family members (Farrell et al., 2004).
2. Therefore, selecting positive peers in school can encourage individuals to conform to positive behavior, and thus, protect against engagement in crime (Farrell et al., 2004; Ford & Schroeder, 2011).

Furthermore, avoiding criminal offenses in high school will likely protect against committing crimes in the future, given that individuals who engage in criminal behavior in their youth are likely to continue doing so in adulthood (Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998).

• Therefore, remaining in high school can protect against crime even after graduation.
• However, failing to do so has severe implications on a student’s educational and criminal outcomes (Lochner & Moretti, 2004).
• Students who are suspended or expelled due to zero-tolerance policies are not able to benefit from these protective elements and are more likely to eventually enter the juvenile justice system (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002).

These students are also more likely to drop out of school completely, as there are often no alternative schools or educational opportunities for students who have been removed from their school for disciplinary reasons (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002). Given that punitive removal from school increases dropout rates and dropping out of school increases one’s opportunity to commit crime, these students are therefore more at risk for criminal behavior (Arcia, 2006; Lochner & Moretti, 2004).

• Students who are expelled or drop out of high school are also less likely to go to college, which is especially protective against engagement in crime (Ford & Schroeder, 2011).
• Higher educational attainment can increase one’s patience and aversion to risk taking, which lower one’s impulsivity to engage in risky, criminal behavior (Becker & Mulligan, 1997).

Also, higher education further promotes adherence to traditional goals, such as getting a high paying job, which would be a challenge to achieve while engaging in criminal activity (Compton, Gfroerer, Conway, & Finger, 2014; Ford & Schroeder, 2011). Students who graduate from college can eventually attain higher paying jobs and thus are less likely to commit crime and risk incarceration, as they would lose more money during their unpaid time in prison compared to a person with a lower paid position (Lochner & Moretti, 2004).

In fact, people with lower paying jobs and less education often serve the longest sentences if they are incarcerated (Kling, 2006). Ultimately, any level of educational attainment is protective against crime, which is why it is important to keep students in school as long as possible (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Maynard et al., 2015).

Proposal for Interventions Given that education plays a vital role in protecting against criminal behavior and zero-tolerance policies disrupt a student’s educational trajectory, it is clear that these policies are not effective in improving a student’s future life outcomes (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002).

Not only do these policies unproductively and punitively discipline students, they destroy the chance for students to learn valuable moral lessons and create relationships with teachers (Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002; Essex, 2000). Therefore, new policies must be developed in order to both foster positive student outcomes and lessen the likelihood of criminal behavior and future incarceration.

Expelling and suspending students who misbehave at school feeds directly into the school-to-prison pipeline, which refers to the policies, like zero-tolerance, that remove at-risk children from school and increase their chances of becoming involved with the criminal justice system (American Civil Liberties Union, 2016).

• A more effective and rehabilitative consequence for a student who misbehaves would be mandating regular sessions with a school counselor or social worker.
• It is important to provide a misbehaving student with assistance in developing problem solving and social skills (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011).
• Teaching students how to manage their anger and impulses, as well as listen to others and resolve conflicts responsibly better addresses the origin of the dangerous behavior than does simply forcing them out of school (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011; Essex, 2000).

For example, a program called Connect with Kids, which is implemented in schools across the country, establishes a curriculum in the classroom that emphasizes positive social interactions and behavior (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). The program uses activities like storytelling, games, and discussions to teach students positive social skills and has been effective in improving students’ self control and tolerance of others (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011).

• This program is intended to target students before they have misbehaved in order to prevent further problematic behavior in the future.
• However, in order to also positively impact students who are involved with delinquent behaviors already, a more comprehensive program is necessary.
• Over 13,000 schools in the United States have adopted the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) program, which employs a three-tiered strategy to assist students at all levels of misbehavior.

The first tier is targeted at all students and teaches them behavioral expectations, while rewarding positive behaviors and collecting data for future implementations of the program. The second tier targets students who are at-risk for misbehavior by implementing interventions that are specific to the school’s behavioral standards.

The third and final tier targets students who are exhibiting more serious behavioral issues and who would typically be removed from the school if zero-tolerance policies were in place (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). These students are given interventions that are individualized to their situation and often include participation from a student’s family or community (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011).

Including parents in the intervention process is an important step, as it provides the student with more all-encompassing supervision and support, both in and out of the school environment (Essex, 2000). This program is useful because it does not use a “one size fits all” punishment without considering the context of the misbehavior (Essex, 2000).

Instead, it acknowledges that every student has a different set of needs and addresses them accordingly. While there are some programs, like the aforementioned, that offer more effective alternatives to zero-tolerance policies, they are not widely known amongst all schools and administrators. Therefore, these alternative programs are not accessible to every school.

It is important for SWPBIS to be better advertised because of its potential to vastly improve the school environment and benefit both teachers and students. Discussion Given the steady growth of the United States prison population, it is vital to consider a variety of contributing factors and potential solutions (The Sentencing Project, 2014).

Zero-tolerance policies likely contribute to this problem by diverting students from the school system through suspension or expulsion for behaviors deemed problematic (Teske, 2011). This diversion can potentially lead to a permanent withdrawal from education, thereby limiting a student’s access to the protective elements of education.

Without the positive influence provided by the school system, a student can become more likely to engage in criminal behavior, which harms both the community’s safety and the student’s wellbeing (Ford & Schroeder, 2011; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Maynard, Salas-Wright, & Vaughn, 2015).

Therefore, it is vital to keep students in school as long as possible and develop policies that address their misbehavior, rather than remove them from school entirely. In general, future research should evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention programs that already exist, as well as their shortcomings.

Future research should also be conducted in schools to determine whether disciplinary action is being applied fairly by school staff. Additionally, policies should be implemented that require public schools to use alternative interventions, rather than zero-tolerance punishments, in order to make students, teachers, and society safer from criminal behavior.

What does tolerance mean in alcohol?

Alcohol and Tolerance – Alcohol Alert No.28-1995 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism No.28 PH 356 April 1995 Alcohol and Tolerance Alcohol consumption interferes with many bodily functions and affects behavior. However, after chronic alcohol consumption, the drinker often develops tolerance to at least some of alcohol’s effects.

1. Tolerance means that after continued drinking, consumption of a constant amount of alcohol produces a lesser effect or increasing amounts of alcohol are necessary to produce the same effect (1).
2. Despite this uncomplicated definition, scientists distinguish between several types of tolerance that are produced by different mechanisms.

Tolerance to alcohol’s effects influences drinking behavior and drinking consequences in several ways. This Alcohol Alert describes how tolerance may encourage alcohol consumption, contributing to alcohol dependence and organ damage; affect the performance of tasks, such as driving, while under the influence of alcohol; contribute to the ineffectiveness or toxicity of other drugs and medications; and may contribute to the risk for alcoholism.

Functional Tolerance Humans and animals develop tolerance when their brain functions adapt to compensate for the disruption caused by alcohol in both their behavior and their bodily functions. This adaptation is called functional tolerance (2). Chronic heavy drinkers display functional tolerance when they show few obvious signs of intoxication even at high blood alcohol concentrations (BAC’s), which in others would be incapacitating or even fatal (3).

Because the drinker does not experience significant behavioral impairment as a result of drinking, tolerance may facilitate the consumption of increasing amounts of alcohol. This can result in physical dependence and alcohol-related organ damage. However, functional tolerance does not develop at the same rate for all alcohol effects (4-6).

Consequently, a person may be able to perform some tasks after consuming alcohol while being impaired in performing others. In one study, young men developed tolerance more quickly when conducting a task requiring mental functions, such as taking a test, than when conducting a task requiring eye-hand coordination (4), such as driving a car.

Development of tolerance to different alcohol effects at different rates also can influence how much a person drinks. Rapid development of tolerance to unpleasant, but not to pleasurable, alcohol effects could promote increased alcohol consumption (7).

• Different types of functional tolerance and the factors influencing their development are described below.
• During repeated exposure to low levels of alcohol, environmental cues and processes related to memory and learning can facilitate tolerance development; during exposure to high levels of alcohol, tolerance may develop independently of environmental influences.

Acute tolerance, Although tolerance to most alcohol effects develops over time and over several drinking sessions, it also has been observed within a single drinking session. This phenomenon is called acute tolerance (2). It means that alcohol-induced impairment is greater when measured soon after beginning alcohol consumption than when measured later in the drinking session, even if the BAC is the same at both times (8-10).

1. Acute tolerance does not develop to all effects of alcohol but does develop to the feeling of intoxication experienced after alcohol consumption (4).
2. This may prompt the drinker to consume more alcohol, which in turn can impair performance or bodily functions that do not develop acute tolerance.
3. Environment-dependent tolerance.

The development of tolerance to alcohol’s eff ects over several drinking sessions is accelerated if alcohol is always administered in the same environment or is accompanied by the same cues. This effect has been called environment-dependent tolerance.

Rats that regularly received alcohol in one room and a placebo in a different room demonstrated tolerance to the sedative and temperature-lowering effects of alcohol only in the alcohol-specific environment (11). Similar results were found when an alcohol-induced increase in heart rate was studied in humans (12).

When the study subjects always received alcohol in the same room, their heart rate increased to a lesser extent after drinking in that room than in a new environment. Environment-dependent tolerance develops even in “social” drinkers in response to alcohol-associated cues.

• In a study analyzing alcohol’s effects on the performance of an eye-hand coordination task, a group of men classified as social drinkers received alcohol either in an office or in a room resembling a bar.
• Most subjects performed the task better (i.e., were more tolerant) when drinking in the barlike environment (13).

This suggests that for many people, a bar contains cues that are associated with alcohol consumption and promote environment-dependent tolerance. Learned tolerance. The development of tolerance also can be accelerated by practicing a task while under the influence of alcohol.

1. This phenomenon is called behaviorally augmented (i.e., learned) tolerance.
2. It first was observed in rats that were trained to navigate a maze while under the influence of alcohol (14).
3. One group of rats received alcohol before their training sessions; the other group received the same amount of alcohol after their training sessions.

Rats that practiced the task while under the influence of alcohol developed tolerance more quickly than rats practicing without prior alcohol administration. Humans also develop tolerance more rapidly and at lower alcohol doses if they practice a task while under the influence of alcohol.

• When being tested on a task requiring eye-hand coordination while under the influence of alcohol, people who had practiced after ingesting alcohol performed better than people who had practiced before ingesting alcohol (15).
• Even subjects who only mentally rehearsed the task after drinking alcohol showed the same level of tolerance as those who actually practiced the task while under the influence of alcohol (15).

The expectation of a positive outcome or reward after successful task performance is an important component of the practice effect on tolerance development. When human subjects knew they would receive money or another reward for successful task perfmance while under the influence of alcohol, they developed tolerance more quickly than if they did not expect a reward (16).

The motivation to perform better contributes to the development of learned tolerance. Learned and environment-dependent tolerance have important consequences for situations such as drinking and driving. Repeated practice of a task while under the influence of low levels of alcohol, such as driving a particular route, could lead to the development of tolerance, which in turn could reduce alcohol-induced impairment (16).

However, the tolerance acquired for a specific task or in a specific environment is not readily transferable to new conditions (17,18). A driver encountering a new environment or an unexpected situation could instantly lose any previously acquired tolerance to alcohol’s impairing effects on driving performance.

• Environment-independent tolerance.
• Exposure to large quantities of alcohol can lead to the development of functional tolerance independent of environmental influences.
• This was demonstrated in rats that inhaled alcohol vapors (19).
• In another study, mice demonstrated tolerance in environments different from the one in which the alcohol was administered (20).

Significantly larger alcohol doses were necessary to establish this environment-independent tolerance than to establish environment-dependent tolerance (20) Metabolic Tolerance Tolerance that results from a more rapid elimination of alcohol from the body is called metabolic tolerance (2).

It is associated with a specific group of liver enzymes that metabolize alcohol and that are activated after chronic drinking (21,22). Enzyme activation increases alcohol degradation and reduces the time during which alcohol is active in the body (2), thereby reducing the duration of alcohol’s intoxicating effects.

However, certain of these enzymes also increase the metabolism of some other drugs and medications, causing a variety of harmful effects on the drinker. For example, rapid degradation of sedatives (e.g., barbiturates) (23) can cause tolerance to them and increase the risk for their use and abuse.

• Increased metabolism of some prescription medications, such as those used to prevent blood clotting and to treat diabetes, reduces their effectiveness in chronic drinkers or even in recovering alcoholics (24).
• Increased degradation of the common painkiller acetaminophen produces substances that are toxic to the liver (25) and that can contribute to liver damage in chronic drinkers.

Tolerance and the Predisposition to Alcoholism Animal studies indicate that some aspects of tolerance are genetically determined. Tolerance development was analyzed in rats that were bred to prefer or not prefer alcohol over water (26,27). The alcohol-preferring rats developed acute tolerance to some alcohol effects more rapidly and/or to a greater extent than the nonpreferring rats (26).

• In addition, only the alcohol-preferring rats developed tolerance to alcohol’s effects when tested over several drinking sessions (27).
• These differences suggest that the potential to develop tolerance is genetically determined and may contribute to increased alcohol consumption.
• In humans, genetically determined differences in tolerance that may affect drinking behavior were investigated by comparing sons of alcoholic fathers (SOA’s) with sons of nonalcoholic fathers (SONA’s).

Several studies found that SOA’s were less impaired by alcohol than SONA’s (28,29). Other studies found that, compared with SONA’s, SOA’s were affected more strongly by alcohol early in the drinking session but developed more tolerance later in the drinking session (30).

• These studies suggest that at the start of drinking, when alcohol’s pleasurable effects prevail, SOA’s experience these strongly; later in the drinking session, when impairing effects prevail, SOA’s do not experience these as strongly because they have developed tolerance (30).
• This predisposition could contribute to increased drinking and the risk for alcoholism in SOA’s.

Alcohol and Tolerance-A Commentary by NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis, M.D. Tolerance can be a useful clue for clinicians in identifying patients who may be at risk for developing alcohol-related problems. For example, younger patients who are early in their drinking histories and who report that they can “hold their liquor well” may be drinking at rates that will place them at risk for medical complications from alcohol use, including alcoholism.

The fact that tolerance to all of alcohol’s effects does not develop simultaneously is also important; people who are mildly tolerant may exhibit more symptoms of impairment when faced with unfamiliar activities, such as driving in an unknown area, than when they are engaged in routine actions, such as driving home from work.

Lastly, although we know that initial sensitivity to alcohol may play a role in the development of alcoholism, the role of tolerance in maintaining addiction to alcohol needs further exploration. References (1) American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.

Washington, DC: the Association, 1994. (2) Tabakoff, B.; Cornell, N.; & Hoffman, P.L. Alcohol tolerance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 15(9):1005-1012, 1986. (3) Chesher, G., & Greeley, J. Tolerance to the effects of alcohol. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 8(2):93-106, 1992. (4) Vogel-Sprott, M.D. Acute recovery and tolerance to low doses of alcohol: Differences in cognitive and motor skill performance.

Psychopharmacology 61(3):287-291, 1979. (5) Pohorecky, L.A.; Brick, J.; & Carpenter, J.A. Assessment of the development of tolerance to ethanol using multiple measures. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 10(6):616-622, 1986. (6) Tabakoff, B., & Kiianmaa, K.

• Does tolerance develop to the activating, as well as the depressant, effects of ethanol? Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior 17(5):1073-1076, 1982.
• 7) Tabakoff, B., & Hoffman, P.L.
• Tolerance and the etiology of alcoholism: Hypothesis and mechanism.
• Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 12(1):184-186, 1988.

(8) Beirness, D., & Vogel-Sprott, M. The development of alcohol tolerance: Acute recovery as a predictor. Psychopharmacology 84(3):398-401, 1984. (9) Bennett, R.H.; Cherek, D.R.; & Spiga, R. Acute and chronic alcohol tolerance in humans: Effects of dose and consecutive days of exposure.

• Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 17(4):740-745, 1993.
• 10) Hiltunen, A.J., & Järbe, T.U.C.
• Acute tolerance to ethanol using drug discrimination and open-field procedures in rats.
• Psychopharmacology 102(2):207-212, 1990.
• 11) Mansfield, J.G., & Cunningham, C.L.
• Conditioning and extinction of tolerance to the hypothermic effect of ethanol in rats.

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 94(5):962-969, 1980. (12) Dafters, R., & Anderson, G. Conditioned tolerance to the tachycardia effect of ethanol in humans. Psychopharmacology 78(4):365-367, 1982. (13) McCusker, C.G., & Brown, K. Alcohol-predictive cues enhance tolerance to and precipitate “craving” for alcohol in social drinkers.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 51(6):494-499, 1990. (14) LeBlanc, A.E.; Gibbins, R.J.; & Kalant, H. Behavioral augmentation of tolerance to ethanol in the rat. Psychopharmacologia 30:117-122, 1973. (15) Vogel-Sprott, M.; Rawana, E.; & Webster, R. Mental rehearsal of a task under ethanol facilitates tolerance.

Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior 21(3):329-331, 1984. (16) Sdao-Jarvie, K., & Vogel-Sprott, M. Response expectancies affect the acquisition and display of behavioral tolerance to alcohol. Alcohol 8(6):491-498, 1991. (17) Siegel, S., & Sdao-Jarvie, K.

1. Attenuation of ethanol tolerance by a novel stimulus.
2. Psychopharmacology 88(2):258-261, 1986.
3. 18) Tsibulsky, V.L., & Amit, Z.
4. Role of environmental cues as Pavlovian-conditioned stimuli in enhancement of tolerance to ethanol effects: 1.
5. Lethal effects in mice and rats.
6. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior 45(2):473-479, 1993.

(19) Tabakoff, B., & Culp, S.G. Studies on tolerance development in inbred and heterogeneous stock National Institutes of Health rats. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 8(5):495-499, 1984. (20) Melchior, C.L., & Tabakoff, B. Modification of environmentally cued tolerance to ethanol in mice.

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 219(1):175-180, 1981. (21) Lieber, C.S. Metabolism of ethanol and associated hepatotoxicity. Drug and Alcohol Review 10(3):175-202, 1991. (22) Lieber, C.S. The microsomal ethanol oxidizing system: Its role in ethanol and xenobiotic metabolism. Biochemical Society Transactions 16(3):232-239, 1988.

(23) Misra, P.S.; Lefèvre, A.; Ishii, H.; Rubin, E.; & Lieber, C.S. Increase of ethanol, meprobamate and pentobarbital metabolism after chronic ethanol administration in man and in rats. American Journal of Medicine 51(3):346-351, 1971. (24) Lieber, C.S.

1. Interaction of ethanol with other drugs.
2. In: Lieber, C.S., ed.
3. Medical and Nutritional Complications of Alcoholism: Mechanisms and Management.
4. New York: Plenum Press, 1992.
5. Pp.165-183.
6. 25) Sato, C.; Matsuda, Y.; and Lieber, C.S.
7. Increased hepatotoxicity of acetaminophen after chronic ethanol consumption in the rat.

Gastroenterology 80(1):140-148, 1981. (26) Waller, M.B.; McBride, W.J.; Lumeng, L.; & Li, T.-K. Initial sensitivity and acute tolerance to ethanol in the P and NP lines of rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior 19(4):683-686, 1983. (27) Lê, A.D., & Kiianmaa, K.

Characteristics of ethanol tolerance in alcohol drinking (AA) and alcohol avoiding (ANA) rats. Psychopharmacology 94(4):479-483, 1988. (28) Schuckit, M.A. Ethanol-induced changes in body sway in men at high alcoholism risk. Archives of General Psychiatry 42(4):375-379, 1985. (29) Schuckit, M.A., & Gold, E.O.

A simultaneous evaluation of multiple markers of ethanol/placebo challenges in sons of alcoholics and controls. Archives of General Psychiatry 45(3):211-216, 1988. (30) Newlin, D.B., & Thomson, J.B. Alcohol challenge with sons of alcoholics: A critical review and analysis.

• Psychological Bulletin 108(3):383-402, 1990.
• ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism wishes to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Boris Tabakoff, Ph.D., professor and chairman of the Department of Pharmacology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, to the development of this Alcohol Alert.

All material contained in the Alcohol Alert is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced without permission from NIAAA. Citation of the source is appreciated. Copies of the Alcohol Alert are available free of charge from the Scientific Communications Branch, Office of Scientific Affairs, NIAAA, Willco Building, Suite 409, 6000 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7003.

Is it legal to drink non alcoholic beer while driving in Texas?

Is it illegal to drink a 0.0 beer while you’re driving in Texas? Obviously, it’s illegal to drink and drive, but if the beer doesn’t actually contain alcohol will I still get in trouble? There is no law against drinking non-alcoholic beer while you’re driving in Texas ! As long as you’re under the legal limit of 0.08% BAC and you aren’t actively drinking alcohol behind the wheel, you can’t get into trouble with the law. However, you might still get pulled over if you drink non-alcoholic beer while you’re driving since the can or bottle will look very similar.

A cop could see the container and assume that you are drinking and driving, so be prepared to explain yourself if this happens! While you’re learning more about Texas driving laws, why not learn about your insurance options too? The Jerry app can help you find the best rates on the coverage you need.

Just download the app and fill out the questions to learn more. Hope that helps! View full answer

Who introduced zero tolerance?

In 1993, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton first introduced a form of zero-tolerance-style policing to New York City. elected the first Republican mayor in the City for over sixty years that year after a campaign strongly focused on the issue of crime and disorder.

How does zero tolerance reduce crime?

Zero-tolerance policing (ZTP) is a strategy that aims to reduce minor offences and more serious crime through relentless order maintenance and aggressive law enforcement, against even minor disorder and incivilities (Dur and Van Der Weele, 2013).

Where has the zero tolerance policy been used in the UK?

Zero Tolerance Policing – An Evaluation A brief evaluation of Zero Tolerance Policing Please enable JavaScript Zero Tolerance Policing involves the police strictly clamping down on minor criminal activities such as littering, begging, graffiti and other forms of antisocial behaviour.

Clamping down might take the form of on the spot fines, or mandatory jail sentences, as with the ‘three-strikes’ rule in California. The best known example of Zero Tolerance Policy was its adoption in New York City in 1994. At that time, the city was in the grip of a crack-cocaine epidemic and suffered high levels of antisocial and violent crime.

Within a few years of Zero Tolerance, however, crime had dropped from between 30 – 50%. In the UK Zero Tolerance has been applied in Liverpool, a relatively high-crime rate city. Following its introduction in 2005, overall recorded crime fell by 25.7 per cent in the three years to 2008 with violent crime falling by 38%.

Another application of Zero Tolerance is the ASBO – you can get an ASBO for antisocial rather than criminal behaviour, and go to jail if you breach it, thus ASBOs police minor acts of deviance. The rationale behind the ASBO stems from the right realist (right wing/ new right/ neoliberal view of the causes of crime – they hold the individual responsible for crime, seeing the individual as making a rational choice to commit crime – if people believe the reward of committing crime outweighs the risk of getting caught and the cost of the punishment, they will commit crime – ZT addresses this by increasing the punishments for minor crimes.

This also fits in with Broken Windows Theory – by focussing on minor crimes, this prevents these spiralling into major crimes, and it fits in with the New Right’s view that the state should be ‘tough on crime’ The biggest strength of ZT is that it seems to work – as the figures above demonstrate.

• It is also relatively cheap to implement and seems to have an immediate effect on crime, unlike the more expensive, long term, social solutions preferred by Left Realists.
• It also makes the public feel as if something is being done about crime, and gives victims a sense of justice.
• However, there are many downsides – Firstly, Zero Tolerance Policing in New York resulted in a lot more people being arrested for possession of marijuana – 25 000 a year by 2012 (one every ten minutes) – some of those people lost their jobs or rental houses as a result.

If labelling theory is correct, once labelled as a criminal, these people will find it very hard to get jobs in the future. Secondly, despite the claims of the right wing governments who implemented them, comparative analysis shows that there are other causes of crime reduction – crime has gone down in cities in the US and the UK without the widespread use of Zero Tolerance techniques – Target Hardening, the increased time people spend online (and thus not on the streets), the declining use of drugs, and even abortion have been suggested as the REAL reasons crime is going down.

Thirdly, Zero Tolerance might be racist in consequence – somewhere in the region of 85% of people dealt with under Zero Tolerance in New York were/ are black or Hispanic. Fourthly ZT focuses on minor crimes, and street crimes, ignoring the more serious crimes committed by elites, which Marxists see as more harmful.

It also does little to address the underlying causes of crime. Finally, and in conclusion, there is the very real possibility that rather than being about reducing crime, ZT policies are ideological in nature – they allow politicians to claim that they are the ones reducing crime by being ‘tough on crime’, but in reality, crime is going down anyway because of other reasons.

What is the NHS zero tolerance policy?

The Practice takes it very seriously if a member of staff or one of the doctors or nursing team is treated in an abusive or violent way. The Practice supports the government’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ campaign for Health Service Staff. This states that GPs and their staff have a right to care for others without fear of being attacked or abused.

1. To successfully provide these services a mutual respect between all the staff and patients has to be in place.
2. All our staff aim to be polite, helpful, and sensitive to all patients’ individual needs and circumstances.
3. They would respectfully remind patients that very often staff could be confronted with a multitude of varying and sometimes difficult tasks and situations, all at the same time.

The staff understand that ill patients do not always act in a reasonable manner and will take this into consideration when trying to deal with a misunderstanding or complaint. However, aggressive behaviour, be it violent or abusive, will not be tolerated and may result in you being removed from the Practice list and, in extreme cases, the Police being contacted.

Using bad language or swearing at practice staffAny physical violence towards any member of the Primary Health Care Team or other patients, such as pushing or shovingVerbal abuse towards the staff in any form including verbally insulting the staffRacial abuse and sexual harassment will not be tolerated within this practicePersistent or unrealistic demands that cause stress to staff will not be accepted. Requests will be met wherever possible and explanations given when they cannotCausing damage/stealing from the Practice’s premises, staff or patientsObtaining drugs and/or medical services fraudulently

We ask you to treat your GPs and their staff courteously at all times.

What are the zero tolerance policy of customer service?

Zero Tolerance Policy – Nobody likes to hear sarcasm from a store attendant. All the more from a phone representative. Call avoidance, misrepresentation, incorrect disposition and even waiting on the phone for a long period of time will turn off your customer’s urgency to speak with an agent.

What is a zero tolerance policy in nursing?

AACN’s Position: – The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) calls for all institutions and healthcare workers to take a zero-tolerance stance on bullying, incivility, and verbal abuse in the workplace. In addition, institutions must implement enforceable policies and culture changing programs to prevent and eliminate abusive, disrespectful, and noncollaborative behaviors in the workplace.