I simply do not understand why the law as it stands now is insufficient to protect people from impaired drivers, at least insofar as any law can do so. Exactly what additional danger is posed now that wasn't posed before to justify a change in the law? If, in a given instance, the state cannot prove that a driver was impaired without a presumption to that effect, that driver obviously wasn't very impaired, were they? This is just another case of law and order authoritarianism versus liberty, which proponents of the former hate with all their being. Prima facie evidence of impaired driving should be EVIDENCE OF HOW THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING. Duh.
senorx12562 Reviewed by senorx12562 on . And here it is...HB11-1261 - the THC Level DUI Bill This is the first sentence of the bill: "The bill allows a person who drives with a tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) blood content of 5 nanograms or more to be charged with DUI per se." Considering the information about THC and driving out there, and the lack of a problem with drivers using cannabis, this surprises me. How did they determine the 5 nanogram benchmark? Rating: 5