California is finally considering a law that would allow motorists driving under the influence of drugs to face criminal charges, but the new law won't affect pot smokers or prescription drug poppers. Still, the California DUI Lawyers Association and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice are opposed to the new law and call it unnecessary. They claim drug testing results vary from lab to lab, which may make proving such cases nearly impossible. Their big beef is that anyone caught under the influence of drugs (driving or not) can already be forced to spend up to 90 days in jail, so the proposed law is redundant.
Under the current California law, coked up drivers can be prosecuted, only it doesn't usually happen. Some authorities feel the reason it's difficult to convict a drugged driver is because juries are used to the numbers game associated with drunken driving tests. In other words, a few snorts of coke should leave a chap fine to drive, but one snort too many and it's time to pull over. Sounds like cracked logic.
The California Highway Patrol thinks people under the influence of cocaine shouldn't be driving, not even a little bit. Probably a good thought, but it's one that will likely prove fruitless.
The proposed California law, AB 1215, is caving into the twisted ignorant-jury logic by requesting Legislature to set numerical values for blood and urine samples to determine just how high a driver is and, therefore, whether a conviction is necessary. The Assembly Public Safety Committee wants a no tolerance policy similar to laws currently in affect in over 15 states. Not only would zero-tolerance keep the roads safer from cokeheads, but it would make it easier for the police to do their job. No numbers means not having to rely on or prove varying lab results.
Either way, this law wouldn't affect marijuana users which, if you've ever been to California you know, are the majority of reckless drivers on the road. In fact, the one-way street signs in San Francisco are enough to drive even a straight gal to the bong. It's likely that the objecting DUI Lawyers Association and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice are simply protecting their own rights to drive and toke.
There should be a law banning driving while inder the influence of any mind-altering drug. Alcohol, pot, the works! It's all dangerous and it's time people recognized it.
I agree Leah. I don't care what people do when it only affects themselves, but out on the road endangering the lives of others isn't good.
Are there any states that have laws on the books that cover any type of driving under the influence of any drug ?
Studies have shown (though have not proved) that one who drives under the influence of marijuana actually preforms better when participating in a driving course. Maybe it is time that people recognize marijuana for what it truly is, harmless and medicinal. Though I do not think it should be all right to drive a vehicle under the influence of anything, it should be recognized that a person driving under the influence of marijuana is completely different (and less of a risk) then that of someone driving drunk.
Courts will still need to deal with the up to 6% or higher false positive rate on even the most accurate drug testing. That is a higher false positive then a polygraph.
Oh yea, here they go again. I've heard of other situations where a government entity sets "levels" for intoxication thresholds. Trouble is, urine tests will never show intoxication, only consumption. The levels that are reported by the labs are affected by a number of factors, amount of consumption, body weight, diet, exercise, and health and so can not determine intoxication - no matter what the court or legislature decides. They only way to determine intoxication is through blood testing (I'd like to see the troopers pulling that off) and, even there, there is no established standard.