[robertpaulsen]

"Either you drove drunk, or you didn't."

That's my point. I wasn't drunk. I was at .08, and was TOLD I was drunk because of that arbitrary number. Two years ago when the number was .1, they told me I wasn't drunk at .08.

Now, if you're advocating that a person who possesses some pot be allowed to argue that he had no intent on crossing state lines, then why can't I argue my DWI? Why can't I prove that I am capable of driving safely at .08?

[inquest]

"Either you drove drunk, or you didn't."

That's my point. I wasn't drunk. I was at .08, and was TOLD I was drunk because of that arbitrary number.

OK, either you drove at .08 or above, or you didn't. Better?

Now, if you're advocating that a person who possesses some pot be allowed to argue that he had no intent on crossing state lines, then why can't I argue my DWI?

What's he being prosecuted for? Intent to cross state lines with his pot? Then, I'd think that should be a pretty sound defense, on the face of it. When it comes to DWI, either you're in violation, or you're not. How are you drawing "intent" into that equation?

[mugs99]

That's my point. I wasn't drunk. I was at .08, and was TOLD I was drunk because of that arbitrary number. Two years ago when the number was .1, they told me I wasn't drunk at .08

ROTFLMAO!!!
You were leagally drunk and behind the wheel of a motor vehicle! It wasn't even the first time you were caught weaving down the highway! You are a danger to our children! How can you condemn another for smoking pot?
You should clean up your own life before throwing stones at others!!!
.

[supercat]

Now, if you're advocating that a person who possesses some pot be allowed to argue that he had no intent on crossing state lines, then why can't I argue my DWI? Why can't I prove that I am capable of driving safely at .08?

You should be able to argue it. As to whether a jury accepts your arguments as to why you should not be prosecuted, that would be up to them.