Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the count-on-a-politician-to-write-a-stupid-law dept.

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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmoschner on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:09PM

    by jmoschner (3296) on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:09PM (#7986)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Ellis D. Tripp on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:19PM

    by Ellis D. Tripp (3416) on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:19PM (#7994)

    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....

    "Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey