Just like alcohol if used properly you are fine. You can claim all day long that you are unaffected by higher doses of anything, but that claim is without merit. Reaction time is impacted, and what would have been a fender bender turns into a fatal accident because someone decided to take too much cold medicine, or drank too much at the bar. You seem to think there is a distinction here, but there is not. The law in most states treats a DUI as any intoxicating substance. So on this account, you are wrong. You have been told this detail previously in the thread.
Im not denying alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal) can have ill effects. That is why I dont drink and NEVER have drank in my life.
Im not concerned what current alcohol laws are, Im critiquing it on a philosophical level. Of course I know what a DUI is, Im merely saying it SHOULDNT be a crime. It should only be a crime if you damage someone elses life or property. To which case, you are charged with said crime, NOT for DUI/DWI.
No one is pulled over for drunk driving when nothing has occurred. If you are pulled over for a broken taillight and the officer notices you have 50 big macs piled on your lap preventing you from being able to safety operate the motor vehicle under the law he absolutely can arrest or cite you for reckless endangerment. Not likely, but he can, it is the absurdness of the comparison that should be noted here however.
You missed the point. I know a guy who almost instantly has to take a nap after a big meal. It is just as impairing as falling asleep at the wheel, or as you claim a drink of alcohol is, etc. So how should we address this? Ban driving after everyone takes a nap after a meal? No, you throw him in jail when or IF he aggresses against another's person or or property.
A cop can pull you over under whatever auspices he can concoct, OR they can set up 'safety check points' and attempt to ascertain if you have been drinking. They retain the right to detain you and/or arrest you if they suspect YOU HAVE THE WRONG CONTENTS IN YOUR BLOOD, NOT because you have committed an act of aggression against someone else or their property. Which is the proper definition of crime, infringements or aggression on ones life or property by another. Mala in se.
This is ridiculous.
Let me give you an example of why this is ridiculous.
Lets say you are at the gun range, and the rules are pretty standard, just like at most gun ranges today.
-Keep your muzzle pointed down range.
-Unloading and lock back the bolt when the line goes cold.
-Wear hearing and eye protection.
(other rules may apply but for this example this is enough)
Lets say someone keeps breaking these rules, loading there gun while people are changing targets during a cold line, pointing the muzzle at people, and generally just disobeying the safety rules.
Using your logic above we would be remiss to ask this guy to leave until he accidentally shot someone?
Breaking the rules of a private shooting facility and presenting this as breaking a law enforced by government is a false dichotomy.
If you break the law of the govt, they retain the right to maim, cage, kidnap, fine and ultimately shoot you if you resist sufficiently enough, even if you committed no aggression against another person.
If someone breaks the rules of my range on my property, I throw them out, I do not claim the right to maim, cage, kidnap or shoot them if they do not do as I tell them. HUGE difference.
I can tell them to leave, but I cannot just plug them, claim 'officer safety' and demand my garrity, then get a paid vacation and a slap on the wrist after an 'internal investigation.'
I cannot charge this person breaking range rules with a 'crime' (even though he didnt shoot anyone), throw them in jail, take them to court, and have a jury throw them in jail for not listening to what I told him. I can just evict him from my property and my jurisdiction.
Of course the answer is not to prosecute victimless crimes on 'public' roads, it is to privatize the roads in order to properly manage them.
However alcohol consumption can objectively be shown to impair driving, so it hardly compares now does it?
No where have I denied alcohol consumption CAN impair judgement, Im merely stating is not a crime and should not be prosecuted. Only actual crimes committed by drunk persons should be prosecuted. If you cannot point to a victim, how can you determine if a crime has been committed? It is the first thing in you learn in law school. For their to be a crime, there must be a victim. Then they spend the next 4-8 years explaining to you how the state is a victim if one doesn't comply with its authority or engages in a mala prohibita 'crime.'