Submitted by t800x t3_10e8v08 in Washington
UnkindPotato t1_j4qqota wrote
I'll be voting "NO"
Everyone forgets that back in the day, nobody agreed with the .08 de facto limit, because de facto intoxication laws arwn't based in science. Nobody wanted these laws on the books because they invite corruption and give the police a reason to arrest and persecute people who aren't actually intoxicated.
The feds had to blackmail the states with federal highway funding in order to get the .08 limit passed. It worked.
I don't vote "YES" on laws that aren't supported by evidence. We don't need a hard alcohol limit, we need a set of objective measures of performance supported by science, unlike most current FSTs (with the exception of HGN) to determine intoxication
rosesandpiglets t1_j4qz57r wrote
Our state supreme court already decided Cannabis intoxication laws with no basis in science are fine, I’m not super hopeful
TVDinner360 t1_j4rxzhx wrote
I don’t think you get to vote. The legislators do.
[deleted] t1_j4twd0k wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments