Quote:
Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan
This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.
That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?
|
I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.
What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.