|
Home > Library > You Are Going Directly To Jail > How to Combat "Zero Tolerance" DUID Legislation
How to Combat "Zero Tolerance" DUID Legislation
From a legislative standpoint, it is vital that opponents of "zero tolerance" per se legislation express to politicians the fact that they strongly support the goal of keeping impaired drivers off the road -- regardless of whether the driver is impaired from alcohol or other drugs. In practice, however, "zero tolerance" DUID laws do little to meet this goal. Rather, they attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws in order to identify and prosecute recreational drug users per se by inappropriately defining sober drivers who present no traffic safety risk as legally impaired. Moreover, they eliminate any incentive for cannabis users to curb their use prior to driving, as the law fails to differentiate between an offender who may have consumed marijuana within the past hour versus one who may have consumed marijuana several days earlier.
By comparing "zero tolerance" DUID laws to existing state laws prohibiting drunk driving, their intellectual dishonesty becomes even more apparent.
Do drunk driving laws punish drivers for simply consuming alcohol? No. They sanction drivers who are impaired by alcohol to the point that they are no longer safe to operate a motor vehicle. Why not apply this same standard to DUID legislation? Do drunk driving laws target drivers for having previously consumed alcohol some days or weeks earlier? Of course not. They sanction drivers for present intoxication, and only if that intoxication is presently affecting their driving performance. Again, why not apply this same common-sense standard to DUID legislation? Do drunk driving laws set their per se levels at zero? No, they employ scientifically sound cutoff levels that can be correlated to impairment of performance. Once again, why not apply this same standard to DUID laws?
At a minimum, state DUID laws should identify parent drugs, not simply inactive drug metabolites. Further, these laws must employ scientifically sound cutoff levels that correlate drug concentration to impairment of performance, similar to the 0.08% BAC standard that now exists for drunk driving in most states. While existing data in this realm is limited, preliminary findings suggest that THC-blood levels above 5ng/ml may be associated with impairment and an increased accident risk, but that THC-blood levels below this threshold are not. In addition, there must also be assurances that these laws mandate any and all drug testing to be performed and confirmed by accredited state labs using uniform procedures and standards. Lastly, DUID legislation should strictly define who can be tested and under what circumstances. Invasive testing methods, such as blood screening, should not be allowed unless observed impairment has been determined and an arrest has been made. Such measures, if enacted by the states, would be a reasonable alternative to unsound "zero tolerance" drugged driving legislation.
I Fought the Law and the Law Won>
|
