[tpaine]

It is clear that both of the cases mentioned in the court records were persons who admitted having recently consumed cannabis and thus were guilty of DUI, but the broad interpretation of any trace of cannabis found in the body of a person deeming that person liable of guilt of DUI is preposterous - IMHO.

Your position is more than an "honest opinion".. -- It is the base fact enumerated in the 14th amendment, "-- nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; --".

The 'law' at issue here is an unreasonable and arbitrary infringement on due process, -- in that it claims "the mere trace evidence of a person having once consumed an inebriating substance" --- "is guilty".

[winston2]

The 'law' at issue here is an unreasonable and arbitrary infringement on due process, -- in that it claims "the mere trace evidence of a person having once consumed an inebriating substance" --- "is guilty".

Are there any "law makers" out there that have an understanding of the principle of "one being responsible for their own actions"?

A citizen should be judged by their actions not by the cannaboids that might be found in their urine.