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?
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?
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.