>What is that?
It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be some other abstract measurement of reaction time.
I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, is an alternative.
8,634 karma · joined May 3, 2012
It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be some other abstract measurement of reaction time.
I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, is an alternative.
The evidence of the stuff stays in your system much longer than the impairment. There is also the issue of "tolerance" and or how the amount of substance present in urine or blood relates to the supposed impairment.
>So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.
But you can still perform an objective test to determine if someone is currently impaired. They need to design and validate a motor skills and reaction time test. I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired.
No, they don't have any credibility in the matter. They're working an emotionally poignant tragedy to curry favor for the expansion of their authority.
Let me tell you how to defend against that, because there will always be some of those people. Spy as little as possible, conceal it as much as you can, don't share your spy info to catch drug dealers, in fact, don't use it to prosecute crime at all, use it to stop real terrorist violence in progress and let some other jokers take the credit, use it to fact check diplomatic shenanigans. Spying and policing have zero business together in a free society.
Why do some people seem to have the opinion that authoritarianism (anti-privacy) is a feature of one political party (or ideology) more than another. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of congresspersons who are strong protectors of the fourth amendment. Amash - R, Wryden - D, Rand Paul - R, Ron Paul - R, Udall - D. and a few others. Most just follow whatever the party whip tells them to do, and then there are a handful of very authoritarian troublemakers: ie: Pete King - R and Dutch Ruppersberger - D, et al.
Isn't that the way the judicial system typically works even when it is obviously broken? Isn't this the reason we have things like weird laws that are "unenforceable", because as a matter of policy we tend to wait for actual harm to occur before we expend effort to address it?
>can't require safety inspections for aircraft, gotta wait for a bunch of people to fall out of the sky first!
That's actually the way the FAA came into existence. The Wright brothers didn't have to send $5.00 to the FAA for a permit, or submit to safety inspections, or anything like that. Nor did anyone else, for a long time WRT the early aircraft industry in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administratio...
>Oh yes, that well funded concerned mother lobby. Fucking it up for sociopathic assholes since 1980.
There's the appeal to emotion common to arguments in favor of harsher sentencing for DUI offenders. It appears to be the case however that more and bigger sticks aren't really reducing the number of sociopathic assholes driving drunk.
Please post the study.
* Some people are going to take drugs without regard to legality.
* Some people are going to fill the market's need for drugs through smuggling or manufacturing.
* The government is utterly incapable (by design, actually) of completely preventing the above.
* Without criminalization of drugs manufacturing and sales, there would be very little or no reason for violence in the drugs trade.
>violent street gangs long predate any restrictions on drugs or alcohol
Violent street gangs opportunistically traffic in contraband because prohibition creates a dearth of supply, driving prices high enough to support an illegal black market.
>where something like 17% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses.
I hope you don't mind if I use a single state, I know these thing will vary by state. The top drug crimes in Texas are different degrees of possession and manufacturing and distribution, and you're right, it's about 17%
>The majority of inmates are in fact incarcerated for violent crimes.
There are other crimes that aren't violent and aren't drug offenses, those appear to be about 43% (60% when you include drug offenses), and the violent ones about 40%, not a majority. Do you have a source for your "majority of inmates are in fact incarcerated for violent crimes" claim? The statistics I used are by offense, not by offender. I'm not sure how that will change if the statistics are broken down by offender.
https://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/crim...
If some one called my home on the telephone and said "I'm a US Marshal, send money to pay for a 20 year old debt." or something to that effect, I'd probably interrupt the caller to tell them to put me on their Do Not Call list and then immediately hang up the phone before they ever got the chance to explain half of it. I've received much more creative attempts than that to scam me out of money over the telephone, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in that respect. I get calls from scammers all of the time, and in related news the IRS has recently warned people that scammers are calling and using that exact same pattern but pretending to be collecting an IRS debt instead of student loans. Therefore there is zero chance that I would take a telephone call like that seriously since there is zero way to authenticate the caller. We don't know whether other the marshals tried anything other than the telephone to contact Aker, but I've seen no comment from them to indicate that is the case. Assuming they've only contacted him by telephone then the proposition is that we must all obey anyone who calls us on the phone and claims to be a government agent.