Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz
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.
|
Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.
We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.