And yet allowances have been made in the past, at least, for things like native American Indian ceremonial hallucinogenic mushrooms. Reasonable will differ from one court to another, and it’s often at the appellate level that such differences come down to brass tacks.
The interesting appellate decision will be how the court handles polygamy in the wake of any ruling permitting gay marriage. Political correctness favors gay marriage but opposes polygamy. Logic does not inherently make that distinction. That is never been an impediment to judicial activists in the past and it will be interesting to see what emanations and penumbras they find the to justify gay marriage and continue to prohibit polygamy.
“And yet allowances have been made in the past, at least, for things like native American Indian ceremonial hallucinogenic mushrooms.”
Apples and oranges. A big difference from some people out on a reservation doing poyote(sp) and someone traveling on a highway in a dark carriage with tons of steel bearing down on them.
Sheesh, let the citizens of the same roads see them, even if they have to have a reflective triangle. There rights to live their lives stop where it endangers other drivers.
“... like native American Indian ceremonial hallucinogenic mushrooms”
With the example you cited, other citizens aren’t in danger or a risk due to the mushroom taking. If anyone gets injured, it will be the Native. However, with the buggy situation... any person within the vehicle or in the striking vehicle could be injured/maimed/killed. The buggies are black and I can only imagine early in the morning, at dusk or night... they are VERY hard to see. I agree with the judge on this one. IMHO.