To be differentiated from actually driving under the influence, Congress is pushing for states to start forcing drivers to take blood tests for the presence of drugs (some of which can stay in one's system for over 30 days) and hold drivers liable for any positive results, even if it i a trace amount.
From morons.org:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Are Vague Zero-Tolerance "Drugged Driving" Laws Over-Stepping Their Bounds?
The US Congress is considering zero-tolerance legislation giving police officers the right to require drivers to submit to blood testing if they are suspected of driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Penalties for states failing to adopt this legislation would be a 2% loss per year up to a max of 8% in federal highway funding. (Note the first link is a little outdated -- the legislation, included in the transportation bill, HR 3550, has already been passed by the House.)
There are already similar laws in nine states (Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode island, Utah, and Wisconsin) making it a criminal offense to drive with any detectable trace of an illegal substance in your system with convictions resulting in punishments as severe as drunk driving. Refusing to take the test (at least under Wisconsin law) results in the automatic loss of the driver's liscense.
The Wisconsin version of the "drugged driving" law is already being contested in a handful of cases based on the lack of any defined standard pertaining to impairment. Lawyers argue that with many drugs, like marijuana and cocaine, traces remain in bodily fluids long after any noticeable physical and mental effects have passed. Without precise levels to define a driver as impaired, it is impossible to prove the driver's perceived impairment is the result of drugs detected in his/her system.
Another concern lies in trusting officers of the law not to abuse the "with cause" portions of the law. Do you need to be driving erratically or is a Phish sticker on your car enough of a cause? There is far too much room for misuse of the law and some even want to remove that stipulation, stating that an ideal situation would allow officers to test with or without cause.
Opponents also argue false-positives are another problem associated with this legislation. As most people already know, eating poppy seeds can often result in a test turning up positive for heroin use, and it is theoretically possible for concert goers to test positive for marijuana use if they are subjected to second-hand smoke from others in attendance. The zero-tolerance nature of these laws infer guilt regardless of the actual situations and leave no room for defense in the case of misleading results. Say bye-bye to your right to due process.
On a final note, most (if not all) states already have DWI laws on the books that cover all intoxicants, legal or otherwise, so the new "drugged driving" laws are little more than a relaxing of the rules to make it easier to convict drug users. The police can currently only arrest drug users if they are in possession of controlled substances, but that technicality is no longer relevant under the new laws. Just what we need -- more drug users filling up our prisons....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Call me crazy, but isn't requiring people to submit to blood tests for substances latent in their bloodstream which have nothing to do with their current driving situation the last step before just requiring random drug tests to anyone anywhere? Could the federal government finall, after all these years, come up with an even more expensive and ineffective way to fight the War on Drugs?
Phaedrus
From morons.org:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Are Vague Zero-Tolerance "Drugged Driving" Laws Over-Stepping Their Bounds?
The US Congress is considering zero-tolerance legislation giving police officers the right to require drivers to submit to blood testing if they are suspected of driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Penalties for states failing to adopt this legislation would be a 2% loss per year up to a max of 8% in federal highway funding. (Note the first link is a little outdated -- the legislation, included in the transportation bill, HR 3550, has already been passed by the House.)
There are already similar laws in nine states (Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode island, Utah, and Wisconsin) making it a criminal offense to drive with any detectable trace of an illegal substance in your system with convictions resulting in punishments as severe as drunk driving. Refusing to take the test (at least under Wisconsin law) results in the automatic loss of the driver's liscense.
The Wisconsin version of the "drugged driving" law is already being contested in a handful of cases based on the lack of any defined standard pertaining to impairment. Lawyers argue that with many drugs, like marijuana and cocaine, traces remain in bodily fluids long after any noticeable physical and mental effects have passed. Without precise levels to define a driver as impaired, it is impossible to prove the driver's perceived impairment is the result of drugs detected in his/her system.
Another concern lies in trusting officers of the law not to abuse the "with cause" portions of the law. Do you need to be driving erratically or is a Phish sticker on your car enough of a cause? There is far too much room for misuse of the law and some even want to remove that stipulation, stating that an ideal situation would allow officers to test with or without cause.
Opponents also argue false-positives are another problem associated with this legislation. As most people already know, eating poppy seeds can often result in a test turning up positive for heroin use, and it is theoretically possible for concert goers to test positive for marijuana use if they are subjected to second-hand smoke from others in attendance. The zero-tolerance nature of these laws infer guilt regardless of the actual situations and leave no room for defense in the case of misleading results. Say bye-bye to your right to due process.
On a final note, most (if not all) states already have DWI laws on the books that cover all intoxicants, legal or otherwise, so the new "drugged driving" laws are little more than a relaxing of the rules to make it easier to convict drug users. The police can currently only arrest drug users if they are in possession of controlled substances, but that technicality is no longer relevant under the new laws. Just what we need -- more drug users filling up our prisons....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Call me crazy, but isn't requiring people to submit to blood tests for substances latent in their bloodstream which have nothing to do with their current driving situation the last step before just requiring random drug tests to anyone anywhere? Could the federal government finall, after all these years, come up with an even more expensive and ineffective way to fight the War on Drugs?
Phaedrus
