Get real. A person on drugs is unfit to be driving and endangers everyone - just like a person whose eyesight is poor or a person with uncontrollable epilepsy.
The 'presumption of innocence' (even though this is a license matter, not a criminal matter) didn't seem to enter her alleged thought-train.This "libertarian" arguement is so transparent as to be absurd.Get real. A person on drugs is unfit to be driving and endangers everyone - just like a person whose eyesight is poor or a person with uncontrollable epilepsy.
When fiscal conservatism collides with habitual drug use, you get a libertarian. "Just leave me alone so I can get high." Pathetic really.
Since drug use is illegal, especially for minors, this seems to be a reasonable step to help kids be drug free. Teenagers need to learn that there a consequences for their actions and I'd rather not have the consequences be traffic deaths due to driving while intoxicated.
So are you saying I shouldn't have been allowed to get a drivers license because I drank alcohol a week before my driving test. Pot can show up in a test a month after someone smokes it but they aren't still high.
Be the way, I was 23 when I got my license so it was legal for me to drink.
Oh, BS. You don't know what you're talking about.
It is perfectly possible to smoke a joint or two on a Friday night and to drive to work safely on the following Monday morning. You would fail the drug test though.
She's just another Nazi dressed up as a Republican.