Bill proposes zero tolerence of driving under influence of drugs, prescriptions

[FelixDeCat]

Why are people all up in arms about this? We have had a law like this in Texas more than a decade. The cop and prosecutor use discretion when bringing charges. Lots of cases are thrown out for lack of evidence.

What this is really for is for someone who causes a serious accident and / or death. A long time ago people used to use the "I was on Nyquil" plea as if it was a defense! Its not! Stay off the road if you are on drugs that make you impaired or drowsy like weed.

Common sense, people!

 

[michal1980]

anything that has "zero tolerance" in it, should be dismissed.

 

[piasabird]

If judges had common sense then this zero tollerance would not be needed. Posession of MJ in most states is only a misdemeaner and Being Intoxicated is another problem. This would probably only be used when someone appears to be impaired.

They should just crush the automobile. They will not be driving for long.

 

[piasabird]

In illionois you would probably get probation or pay a large fine and be put under supervision of the court.

 

[piasabird]

This is like the case in Florida when the Party Princess had 3 time the legal limit for intoxication and got in her care and killed the chef and they gave her a ticket for leaving he scene of an accident. All she faces is a Manslaughter charge. If you drink and drive and kill some one it should be Premeditated Homicide.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And some still haven't read the article. "Zero tolerance isn't for the consumption of medication but for IMPAIRMENT. It's like being drunk behind the wheel for which we have zero tolerance.

 

[Munky]

Ah yes. Kalifornia... Democrat... Zero tolerance... the party of tolerance strikes again.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Stay off the road if you are on drugs that make you impaired or drowsy like weed.

Yeah, next you're going to tell me that eating red meat will cause me to be unable to brush my teeth. Get real.

This is just another cash grab law to steal money from the people who pay their salaries, i.e. taxpayers, once again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ah yes. Kalifornia... Democrat... Zero tolerance... the party of tolerance strikes again.

We'll let's think about that in the context of the article. Do you believe that people who are to drink to drive safely should be allowed to do so and with impunity ?

 

[Munky]

We'll let's think about that in the context of the article. Do you believe that people who are to drink to drive safely should be allowed to do so and with impunity ?

No, I don't want drunk drivers any more than the next guy. But we already have laws against drunk drivers. The combination of "zero tolerance" with something as vague as "under influence of drugs" seems to me like a recipe for abuse of power that can be twisted however the person in power wishes.

 

[marincounty]

Ah yes. Kalifornia... Democrat... Zero tolerance... the party of tolerance strikes again.

When did Republicans vote to legalize cannabis? Yeah, never.
Who did legalize medical marijuana here? Democrats.

Who pushed drug testing in the workplace? Republicans.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I don't want drunk drivers any more than the next guy. But we already have laws against drunk drivers. The combination of "zero tolerance" with something as vague as "under influence of drugs" seems to me like a recipe for abuse of power that can be twisted however the person in power wishes.

I should think that someone who fails impairment tests, say can't walk, then having made the decision to operate a vehicle in such a state merits punishment similar to that found in laws which already on the books. That's the point. There's no penalty for what is a like infringement. I do agree that there needs to be consistent standards rationally based, but if you are screwed up beyond all reason and fail those tests, well I have zero tolerance for that sort of thing.

 

[OverVolt]

I should think that someone who fails impairment tests, say can't walk, then having made the decision to operate a vehicle in such a state merits punishment similar to that found in laws which already on the books. That's the point. There's no penalty for what is a like infringement. I do agree that there needs to be consistent standards rationally based, but if you are screwed up beyond all reason and fail those tests, well I have zero tolerance for that sort of thing.

And then there is the real world! This law would cause problems. First of all, this now includes a ton of drugs under the same impairment test. So if you are off balance because of a muscle relaxant, but aren't drowsy, zero tolerance then?

I don't know, I think its stupid to begin with. This law would cause problems though.

Does this mean people who live with chronic pain and take opiates would have to be scared of driving even if they have a tolerance built up?

It honestly makes my head hurt thinking of all the different drugs they could consider as impairing driving and then trying to gauge if someone is impaired or has a tolerance.

People take ALOT of drugs that say they impair driving. Say you are out and have an anxiety attack, take clonazepam or something. Now you can't drive home? I dunno.

Its so dumb. If you are too drowsy to drive, then don't drive.

 

[zsdersw]

Why are people all up in arms about this? We have had a law like this in Texas more than a decade. The cop and prosecutor use discretion when bringing charges. Lots of cases are thrown out for lack of evidence.

What this is really for is for someone who causes a serious accident and / or death. A long time ago people used to use the "I was on Nyquil" plea as if it was a defense! Its not! Stay off the road if you are on drugs that make you impaired or drowsy like weed.

Common sense, people!

And yet, Texas has the highest number of fatal alcohol-related accidents. Clearly, attempting to legislate common sense has not worked in Texas. Why should we believe it will work anywhere else?

 

[Darwin333]

We'll let's think about that in the context of the article. Do you believe that people who are to drink to drive safely should be allowed to do so and with impunity ?

Do you think we should use something arbitrary that may or may not impair a person to drive to handle the issue or do you think we should test actual impairment regardless of the reason for being impaired?

 

[zinfamous]

Sounds like common sense to me. Why should you take the wheel if you are impaired by substances like weed?

did you read?

 

[zinfamous]

And yet, Texas has the highest number of fatal alcohol-related accidents. Clearly, attempting to legislate common sense has not worked in Texas. Why should we believe it will work anywhere else?

legislating common sense does not work in Texas, because the state is already devoid of such.