Who is playing with theoreticals now? The driver does NOT have a right to be operating a motor vehicle. That is why there is a state issued license. Part of that agreement is to not drive impaired. The cop peering into the vehicle has to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ to intervene. The exception is the check lane. The state has a right to monitor the roads for dangerous and criminal activity.
As for the fatigue part, that is covered under careless and reckless driving. Just like the reasonable suspicion part something happens to bring you to the attention of the police. You have no more right to operate the vehicle recklessly or carelessly tired than you do drunk or stoned.
Nanny state? No, the state has a valid reason to regulate reckless vehicle operation on the roads. It has the right to restrict impaired drivers. It has the right to demand insurance for vehicle operation. America is a nation of laws. Somalia is a nation without them.
It sounds like you just don’t feel like the laws should apply to you.
“It sounds like you just don’t feel like the laws should apply to you.”
How do you reconcile your statement with: “As do I, which is why penalties should be applied for actual driving violations, as opposed to the chemical content, activities, or mental state of the driver.”
That is not a denial of the law, just an expression of what it should be, and how it should be enforced. I think you should re-examine your positions, they’re rife with inconsistency. For instance, it doesn’t matter that you can put a cell phone down and not be impaired. The issue is with the large number of accidents that’re caused while people are using them.
My point is that many people can talk on a cell phone, or drive while mildly stoned, and still outperform many other completely ‘unimpaired’ drivers. Vehicle law enforcement should be based on driver performance, nothing else.