[Fester Chugabrew]

The more jurisprudence focuses upon the potential to commit offenses (”your so high you might hurt someone”) instead of actual offenses (”you hurt someone”), we can expect a deepening morass with liberty (and its attendant responsibilities) sinking into the same.

There should be a way to test a citizen for abilities to handle altered states of awareness and license them for carrying on with life without threat of punishment just for being “under the influence.” The punishment should be meted out swiftly and fairly if the citizen causes harm to body or property of his neighbor. That would incentivize responsible substance use. Most people these days have a conscience and go out of their way to be responsible without being told, just like most people stay on their side of the center line when driving.

[nathanbedford]

The more jurisprudence focuses upon the potential to commit offenses (”your so high you might hurt someone”) instead of actual offenses (”you hurt someone”), we can expect a deepening morass with liberty (and its attendant responsibilities) sinking into the same.

The voice of reason.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

“There should be a way to test a citizen for abilities to handle altered states of awareness...”

There is; it’s called a field sobriety test. How accurate such tests might be is another matter.

I fully agree that the law should get away from restricting people based on what might happen rather than what actually did happen. The logical but absurd endpoint of prior restraint laws is that all people must be locked up because any of them might commit a murder.