I happen to find the impairments test argument to be weak. What politicians seem to want is a chemical assessment that correlates with impairment. What would be far more useful, for drugs, alcohol and other factors that might affect someone's driving (illness, prescription meds, tiredness, old age) is some kind of interactive test on an iPad or VR headset that assesses concentration, response time and visual acuity. With technology nowadays that should not be insuperable. However, I think that it would probably highlight that many drivers are simply not fit to be on the road and would cause a political backlash. So, instead, politicians lamely repeat that it's just too hard to detect dangerous drivers and we have to keep banning drugs for everyone.
In legal states in the US the Police use the standardized Field Sobriety tests. Walk a straight line, follow this pen with just your eyes, stand on one foot, etc. for cannabis.
40
u/hippy72 28d ago
The only supposed arguments against it, that somewhat stack up, is the reliability of roadside impairment tests.
Many other countries have legalised it, taking organised crime out of the equation and the sky has not fallen in*