If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either. (and no one would approve of using such a test for law enforcement).
For alcohol, a comparable test might look at long-term changes in liver biochemistry associated with alcohol consumption. In that case, there probably wouldn't be any correlation with accident rates.
The problem is that there is not a well established mapping between THC levels and impairment. It isn't even clear if such a mapping can be done.
Not sure that's true: if the alcohol was still in your blood that long, it would still be affecting you and impairing function.
Lack of transportation, other options or the public intoxication charges should not and cannot ever be an acceptable reason for driving while impaired.
If you indulge, don't drive. Period.
There is no option B. The only acceptable solution, if you have to get behind a wheel and drive, is to abstain from any impairing consumption.
If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving.
>Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.
How about some personal responsibility? Society isn't responsible for enabling people's drinking. If you can't get home without driving, then don't drink (or if it's a long visit, have only one or two, at the beginning).
All that takes is living out of town and walking down the main route to your house and someone stopping and smelling alcohol.
It is great to put that theoretical thing in place. But people do, occasionally, mess up. I rarely went to bars because of transportation - others, not so much. Alcohol impairs judgement as, and if the options aren't there and easy to use, it is more likely that folks will drive drunk.
http://sftlawyers.com/new-indiana-public-intoxication-law-go...
Or you could just be walking while black (or hispanic, etc.).
I do find it a bit unfair to compare daily smokers to functional alcoholics, however - there is a definite difference in the way the drugs affect folks. This was the main point of the article. A slight buzz like that of a daily smoker - or someone using for medical reasons - isn't affecting safety, but going more than that and it should be obvious. Be safe and all that.
Besides. Part of the issue is that public transportation lacking in a lot of parts of the country. Some folks just don't have options, even things like Uber, and if you live just slightly out of the way, such things wind up costing even more money. If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge. Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.