To paraphrase Ayn Rand..there is no way to govern innocent men…
So should the confession of cocaine use in an autobiography (or was it just a biography falsely written in the first person?) be 'per se' evidence enough to arrest, convict, and incarcerate someone?
If they made pot completely legal at noon today, I would have zero interest in imbibing (my drugs of choice are Guinness and recoil...taken with appropriate gaps in the time/space continuum) but I have a huge interest in governments continuing to criminalize actions that cause no harm but that self-inflicted by a willing adult.
Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP [the Office of National Drug Control Policy] will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.
Under these laws, a driver who has marijuana metabolites in his urine is automatically considered impaired, even though he probably isn't. Because marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine long after the drug's effects have worn off (up to two weeks for occasional users, months for frequent users), a "zero tolerance" DUID standard punishes pot smokers who have not harmed or endangered anyone. Read more at reason.com
