Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Surprises
2 hours ago
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
1 out of 3 Drugged Driving
Before you can legally drive, you must be taught the road rules, driving safety, etc. One of the rules is that you can not consume alcohol (or anything that impairs your motor skills) and drive. Drugs, of course, fall under this restriction. Some drugs explicitly say that you should not consume a dosage and operate machinery, simply because it may impair motor skills. Surprisingly, a report stated that 1 out of 3 drivers in a fatal car crash had drugs in their system. The drugs that were detected were not specifically illegal or could cause an impairment on motor skills. But 1 out of 3 drivers is an extremely high number. Per se laws make it illegal to drive a vehicle above a certain alcohol level, as measured by a blood or breath test. Considering the 1 out of 3 diagnosed drugged drivers, what kind of law should be established with drugged driving?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This "1 out of 3" Drugged Driving test is indeed a frighteningly high statistic. I remember at the beginning of November when my AP Government class was conversing about the legalization of marijuana. One of the big arguments against marijuana was the inability to adequately test drivers for marijuana use. Marijuana use would definitely go up if the legalization of marijuana took place. This increase in marijuana use might make the streets a more dangerous place. And since it is so hard to test the presence and dosage of marijuana, conjuring up laws for drugged driving is difficult.
I think drugged driving should be punished, but I'm not quite sure about the right way to go about making laws for drugged driving.
A possible test for if a driver is drugged could be a couple of basic cognitive exercises.
I think that police officers should be allowed to use common judgment when pulling over drivers. If they look for signs that the driver is under the influence then they should be allowed to take them in. That would probably be the most effective way to test for drugged driving.
I agree, 1 out of 3 is a pretty high number for drugged driving. And it is really hard to test on the spot for drugs, but police can be smarter in these kind of situation and like Cris said, if the sign are there, they should be able to bring them in, and then maybe request a drug test since that cannot be taken like a breathalizer can.
The Per se laws are a unique set of laws: they put a limit on to how much alcohol consumption is allowed before things turn into a DUI. For drugs, the Per Se laws would be endless because there are so many times of drugs out there and the affect the human body in so many different ways (also affects each individual different). It would be truly challenging to determine when too much cough medicine is illegal.
A law definitely needs to be introduced to stop drugged driving. However, I do agree that it's going to be very difficult. Policemen using common sense for when to pull people over could work, but what happens once they are at the station? Don't drugs stay in your system for a while? How could they tell when the drugs had been consumed?
I don't even know if this is possible, but I think something like the breathalizer, except for drugs, should be created. We would definitely need an advance in technology, otherwise 1 out 3 people is a lot of people to be filling up the police stations and jails.
There definatlly needs to be a law that can stopped drugged driving. many teenagers these day experiment with drugs and most of them have a driving lisence. i think that type of technology needs to be invented to catch these drugged drivers so that they do not cause anymore harm to kids or our loved ones.
1 out of 3 is a staggering number. I think this is partly due to how easily accessible some over the counter drugs can be. I think that over the counter drugs should be more controlled about who gets them, because people can easily take advantage of this and overdose. If people do get caught while driving drugged I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be tested and maybe even punished if it was a serious situation.
Because 1 in 3 is such a high number, I get the feeling that the drugs may not have been the only causes of the accidents. I have trouble believing that 1/3 of all driving accidents are caused by medical drug use, but understand that this is still a significant problem. Like Drea stated, I believe that cops should pull people over for unsafe driving and then use their reasoning from there to see if the driver seems drugged. To test for drunk driving, police do not necessarily need a breathalizer. They often test you with a flashlight and make you follow their finger with your eyes, have you walk in a straight line, or smell your breath. Likewise, I am sure there are tests like these that can test for the effects of a drugged person. From there they could either let you go, or take you for further legitimate testing. I do believe that this is a serious issue because people do not realize how much the drugs can affect them. With medical drugs, we are under the impression that they are always safe. Also, driving under the influence of drugs is not as publicly reprimanded as driving under the influence of alcohol. If people are more aware, then I think there could be more of an improvement.
Drugged Driving is very common among many people of various ages. Most medicine bottles say, "Do not operate heavy machinery," although people still do so. I don't believe we could establish any law to prevent drugged driving. The only way to prevent people from drugged driving is making the punishment more severe, but I still don't believe that will stop most people. I think we should just acknowledge this fact, spread it through word of mouth, and tell your loved ones to not do drugs and drive.
My question for you is, "How can police prove people are doing drugs and driving on the spot of where they get pulled over?"
I think that police officers are able to use their judgement to be able to see drivers who are under the influence of drugs. I also remember hearing that you can get in trouble for driving under the influence of drugs. I heard DUI's are for driving under the influence for anything, not just alcohol. You can get DUI's from driving under the influence of marijuana, and there is a tongan fruit that has much stronger effects than alcohol but is not technically a drug. So being under the influence of anything can get you pulled over.
I wouldn't call the "1 out of 3" number a scary statistic. I actually would think that a higher number would be better.
Read the post carefully, "1 out of 3 drivers in a FATAL car crash had drugs in their system"
I would rather have all fatal car crashes caused by drugged driving than just some. Think of it this way. If only 1 out of 3 drivers were in a fatal car crash were on something, well there are still at least 2 other different reasons why the other 2 drivers died behind the wheel.
A little logic: i'd rather have only one way to die and avoid just that one way than have several ways to die and pick and choose ones to avoid (to say to avoid every way would be possible, but not very human-like)
-raymond lim
It's way too complicated to determine a drugged driver just plainly by observing cars driving by on the freeway (although it may be extremely obvious in some occasions such as a person's complete incapability to even stay in his/her lane). Due to the difficulty of detecting a drugged driver, just as polices already do, they can just establish more checkpoints in areas of high population during nighttime such as urban cities on Friday nights. There may be a more effective way to produce a law for drugged driving, but more checkpoints should be beneficial enough for now.
Post a Comment