SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday February 27 2014, @07:50PM
You know, just for once, I'm going to go with there was no bad intent.
They are trying to copy Colorado, but just failed miserably.
The law is actually a really great law in spirit. I get stoned several times a month as it is my preferred method of relaxation, however, I am not under the delusion that is proper for me in any way to operate machinery. I accept that I am impaired to the point where I need to not be doing things like running lawn mowers, taking out appendixes, or operating a multi-ton vehicle around other people.
Where it differs from Colorado is that it doesn't specify minimum levels in the blood, and it doesn't specify that levels due to medical conditions are exempted, and it specifies chemical substances that have never been show to create any levels of impairment, and it doesn't differentiate enough between active forms in the blood and byproducts of them being broken down. I think testosterone was included simply because of "roid rage" possibly turning into road rage.
We actually need these laws to push forward legalization of marijuana. Once it becomes legal, we need a sophisticated law that makes it illegal to be stoned while driving, but legal to have certain types and levels of THC, CBD, CBN, etc.
California for some reason is trying to create a single law that covers way too many chemicals, and in a very simplistic way at that.
Let people rage and then let the politicians come back after talking to scientists *again*.
This is California after all. If there is any state that has no resources left to fight the War on Drugs, it's them. They just don't need to stop the War on Drugs because it's the right thing to do, they need to stop because they're fucking broke as shit.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by demonlapin on Friday February 28 2014, @01:32AM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Acabatag on Friday February 28 2014, @02:44AM
We have the modern technology to design and deploy a 'Fit To Drive' testing device. Some sort of handheld device, perhaps along the lines of a Nintendo 3DS Game Player, that a police officer can hand to someone suspected of impaired driving. The device can detect motor response and eye-hand coordination. Perhaps it would need to be more than a 'device.' Say, a 'virtual reality' seat in the back of the police car to preform the motor-response testing. Get a high enough score in the 'game' or you're arrested.
Problems with this include the fact that there are people out driving on the road who are incapable of driving safely while cold sober. We would need to deal with the fact that said people need to be taken off the road as much as any 'druggie' or 'drunk.'
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday February 28 2014, @04:05AM
Good fucking luck with that nonsense of a testing device.
Not every Senator would be capable of driving... or certain Presidents.....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ellis D. Tripp on Friday February 28 2014, @04:18AM
Plus the fact that such an impartial testing device might reveal that some percentage of the subjects are able to drive perfectly well despite being high. And something like that simply isn't acceptable when there's a culture war to be waged...
"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
(Score: 2) by Khyber on Friday February 28 2014, @05:17AM
"We have the modern technology to design and deploy a 'Fit To Drive' testing device"
No, we do not. You cannot determine whether that 200ng/dL THC content came from today or last night.
Sorry, technology doesn't work the way you think it does with regards to biology.
Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ellis D. Tripp on Friday February 28 2014, @11:43AM
We have the technology to determine if a driver is currently IMPAIRED. "Fitness-For-Duty" testing devices are already in use in workplaces that care more about actual workplace safety issues than just perpetuating the drug war:
http://www.pmifit.com/ [pmifit.com]
The "problems" from a political POV are that such a device would flag many people who are tired, stressed out, aged, or just plain lousy drivers, etc. and pose as much or more of a hazard on the road as drunks or druggies, but haven't previously been a target of police crackdowns. This might even include people who support "tough on drugs" legislation or other political grandstanding, at least until they find themselves in the crosshairs. The other political problem with such tests is that if a test subject is able to "handle their alcohol" (or weed, or pills, or whatever) and tests OK, there would be no legal justification for taking them off the road. And think of the message that would send "TO THE CHILDREN!"
"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
(Score: 2) by Khyber on Friday February 28 2014, @11:19PM
"We have the technology to determine if a driver is currently IMPAIRED."
No, you do not. Impairment may be a hardline set limit, but with regards to regular biology, no, it does not work that way.
And it shows as much in any trial, except for truly drunk fools.
You could not tell if I was too high to drive a mere two minutes after smoking a joint or bowl (and I do, regularly, to relive pain, and I still operate forklifts.)
Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.