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."
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:
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!"
"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.)