Ellis D. Tripp writes "The California state assembly is considering a new bill aimed at reducing the incidence of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID). The proposed law would make it a criminal act to operate a motor vehicle with ANY detectable level of ANY Schedule I through IV drug in your bloodstream. Not only does this include many prescription drugs, but it would also include substances such as gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), n,n-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and testosterone, all of which are controlled substances, and also happen to occur naturally in the human body.
Whether an intentional attempt to create a law to be used selectively against anyone the cops want to arrest, or just an example of the gross ignorance of basic science among US legislators, laws like this are sure to be on the rise as prosecutors and police seek to retain power in the face of efforts to legalize marijuana and begin rolling back the abuses of the War on Drugs."
The politicians who submitted this bill probably didn't think through the implications
You're being very charitable. The politicians who submitted the bill probably didn't even read it.
And your being generous, the politicians who submitted the bill probably didn't even think (or cant)
And yer being benevolent; the politicians who submitted the bill probably didn't drink their coffee either (or talk hypocritically or speak in the whining or singsong tone of a beggar [reference.com]).
I kid, I kid! We're having fun here, no? ;)
Now that you point it out, perhaps that was a Freudian slip such that while I never knew that word consciously, it was in my sub-conscious waiting to be used in regards to politicians. Politicians cant...such a true statement as a default. Wonderful what I learn here. :)
The politicians who submitted the bill introduced a similar measure last year, but it was defeated.
Plus just because a bill has been submitted doesn't mean that it will pass or that it won't be gutted or re-written before being passed.
But why was the original bill defeated? Because of its fundamental unworkability, or some other factor?
If it was previously shot down for being so broad as to make any driver a criminal, and was reintroduced without removing that provision, then the odds of that provision being a an intentional "feature" of the law, and not simply a "bug" goes way up....