I do agree with him. If it is to be legalized it has to be on a national level, and I could only support that if we had a good test for level of impairment for driving. To the best of my knowledge the only test we have will tell if someone has smoked it in the last 2 weeks. So, if someone smokes they can’t drive for 2 weeks? That is not workable.
Testing is a big “unintended consequence.” A urine test can only tell if you have smoked in the past weeks. They need to draw blood to test if an impaired driver is actually high. So expect lots more needles from paramedics and cops, and this will be abused to give an excuse to jab folks the cops don’t like, like the recent forced anal exams in hospitals.
nobody gets impaired by pot for driving—it’s the alchies that get impaired
Back in the day before cops all had breathalyzers they used to give field sobriety tests. Different people become impaired at different levels anyway, so why not test directly to see if they are impaired or not?
You're operating on a faulty assumption here: that the illegalization is itself legitimate.
To enact similar regulation on alcohol the Constitution was amended, yet no such amendment exists WRT drugs.
Moreover, the power used to claim the authority to regulate drugs is the interstate commerce clause; which is the exact same clause regarding foreign trade.
To legitimize the War on Drugs the courts have transmuted the interstate commerce clause into an intrastate power, indeed to the point where non-commerce is regulated [under the commerce clause]. (See Raich)
Interestingly, if the federal government tried to regulate foreign countries as it does the states, such would be considered an act of war... and the enforcement of such policies would be (a) the waging of that war, or (b) the victor's subjugation of the defeated. — The Constitution defines the waging of war upon the several states as treason.