congress to tackle "drugged-driving"

[jens]

something you should read about...

smoke a joint in amsterdam while on vacation,
get a DUID a month later

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gged_driving_2

[johnny861]

Damn.. we're all screwed...

I don't think it'll ever get passed.

The fact that most drugs stay in your system for a bit after their effects ware off would make a conviction in court a hard thing for the State to get. I also think that making it illegal to have drugs in your system a serious infridgement of The Bill of Rights.

Besides, it's already illegal to drive around fucked up.

I think cooler heads will prevail on this one.

The federal Gov't can impose legislation on the states by demanding certain laws be passed or lose federal funding. (Dole v South Dakota)

Laws for driving while impaired - on whatever - already exist.

A zero tolerance law may be adopted to pay lip service - but as pointed out above - weed stays in your system for up to 4 weeks. No one is still impaired after 4 weeks from one joint. Nor two days later from a line etc etc.

The question may be one of punishment for violating the law. If one is determined tio have drugs in one's system and also to not be impaired how can any severe punishment be justified. Small fine applicable perhaps?

All of which leads to the more interesting comment pointed out above......how in the world would a cop come up with sufficient probable cause to make a person submit to the substantial intrusion on one's right to privacy caused by drug testing?

Cops with mass Spectrometer vision can tell be looking at your system that you were somking weed a week ago?

[alexican]

Originally posted by xiannaix
The federal Gov't can impose legislation on the states by demanding certain laws be passed or lose federal funding. (Dole v South Dakota)

Laws for driving while impaired - on whatever - already exist.

A zero tolerance law may be adopted to pay lip service - but as pointed out above - weed stays in your system for up to 4 weeks. No one is still impaired after 4 weeks from one joint. Nor two days later from a line etc etc.

The question may be one of punishment for violating the law. If one is determined tio have drugs in one's system and also to not be impaired how can any severe punishment be justified. Small fine applicable perhaps?

All of which leads to the more interesting comment pointed out above......how in the world would a cop come up with sufficient probable cause to make a person submit to the substantial intrusion on one's right to privacy caused by drug testing?

Cops with mass Spectrometer vision can tell be looking at your system that you were somking weed a week ago?

its not an imposition if the government is merely "suggesting" that if you don't follow the rules you'll lose federal funding. how do you think they got that reduced speed limit to go into effect? any state that decided against lowering their speed limit didn't get money needed to build and repair roads.

and as far as how a cop would have grounds for drug testing motorists, don't think for a second that congress wouldn't come up with some ghey ass list of things to look for like red eyes or a smokey smell.

Originally posted by RainbowBriteB29
its not an imposition if the government is merely "suggesting" that if you don't follow the rules you'll lose federal funding. how do you think they got that reduced speed limit to go into effect? any state that decided against lowering their speed limit didn't get money needed to build and repair roads.

The parenthetical note (Dole v South Dakota) was a reference to the case that determined that this was permissible - so yes, I was quite aware of the process. And it was actually drinking age of 21 imposed on the sates that lead to the case - not speed limits - although the technique was the same.

If the federal government merely "suggests" and does not wave the stick threatening funding withholding then no state will comply if they don't feel like it. If a state "complies" blame the idiot legislators of that state for having no balls.

Originally posted by RainbowBriteB29
and as far as how a cop would have grounds for drug testing motorists, don't think for a second that congress wouldn't come up with some ghey ass list of things to look for like red eyes or a smokey smell.

Congress - and by that I assume you refer to federal cannot legislate probable cause for state criminal issues. Also, probable cause is determined from a "totality of the circumstances" test - not from a legislated laundry list. However, laundry lists that have developed from case law do exist. Red, watery eyes and slurred speech for example.

Red eyes and smokey smell quite likely is probable cause if the smokey smell smells like weed or there are other suggestive circumstances. But that would be probable cause as to being high right now - not to having smoked a week ago - which was my point.

Let me say it again - how is a cop going to honestly argue from looking at a person that they have probable cause to believe the person smoked a joint a week ago or did a line two days ago. Just isn't possible. Seriously can you think of anything that is a tell tale sign of having burned one a week ago?

Ok maybe blisters on your lips and your lighter has these little black stains on it