France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer 706
Zothecula writes "It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user. This is most evident on our roads, where even in first world countries with low road tolls, alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths. Now France is to attempt a novel solution — from July of this year, it will become law in France to have a working breathalyzer in every car on the road, with enforcement beginning November 1."
In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't think this is a good idea. At least in the US, where our BAC limits are 25% of what actually impairs driving. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for anyone driving drunk and injuring or killing someone else (what you do to yourself I do not care about) but the whole BAC thing is an estimate that is cut in half for "good measure" then cut in half again.
You can read more about the whole "Drunk Driving Exception" here [duicentral.com]
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Interesting)
I never heard of the "glass in the weed" thing before, but hearing about it now it seems clear where it started -- in the ghetto, and is certainly false. Dealers often call high quality dope "glass" these days. Easy to see how this might confuse some into thinking somebody would put glass in weed.
However, back in the '70s people would often take shitweet (not weed with shit in it, weed that wouldn't get you high) and add PCP to make it give you a high. I don't know if this is still done, but I suspect it probably is. Also, there are often other contaminants from carelssness, such as jimson weed*, spider webs, insects, etc, especially in low grade smoke.
However, these days you can tell good weed from the smell of the baggie.
*Jimson weed is a nasty high and will ruin your dope
So, a hypothetical... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jacques get in his car, decides to use his $2 breathalyzer which says he is under the legal limit.
He drives off and ends up killing a family of four in a crosswalk.
Which of these is going to be the case:
A) The fact that he used the breathalyzer and it indicated he was not over the limit is a sufficient defense against a charge of drunk driving.
B) The fact that he used the breathalyzer indicates he felt there was a chance he was over the limit, and is thus sufficient proof that he was impaired.
G.