Prompted by “Evidence Fails to Support Proposed DUI Impairment Levels for Cannabis”: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/39383/evidence-fails-to-support-proposed-dui-impairment-levels-for-cannabis/
“Per se traffic safety laws criminalize those who operate a vehicle with trace or specific levels of a controlled substance in their bodily fluids, even in the absence of any further evidence indicating that the subject was behaviorally impaired.”
Traffic safety laws (at least supposedly) exist to reduce the risk of harm from harmful driving.
What reduces the risk of harmful laws (too often entrenched for unethically gained social power — e.g. money — against the public good)?
When will at least most people firmly understand that the application of law itself is (sometimes seriously, if not also outrageously) risky at times, so requires serious public attention and care prior to any legislation being passed?
While some families have been broken due to horrible driving incidences (e.g. due to recklessly high-age driving), how many families have at least been similarly broken due to horrible laws (ones that economically break them, put non-violent people in prison, discriminate, etc.)?
The “high-age” example is prime, because senior citizens can be seriously risky drivers, but there is no ceiling age limit. There is a floor age limit (basically 16 years old to get a license), but no ceiling. Why? Because senior citizens form the strongest voting group (i.e. they usually actually go to the voting booth and pull the lever), so no legislator (i.e. elected politician) wants to lose their election (so that legislator never legislates any liberty-infringing law against senior citizens).
Risk exists, no matter what the rule-of-law states. Each one of us will die, regardless of the rule-of-law (factually, speaking).
Laws do not mainly (if not solely) exist to make society safer, even though that is the continuous proclamation by those benefiting by the existence of those laws.
Laws mainly (if not solely) exist to make dominant parts of society safer (better) for themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Justice includes fairness in its definition. If there is no fairness in law, there is no justice in law. In any truly civilized society, that means any unjust law is not actually lawful (just awful — sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Just laws can only be objectively defined laws (“oblaws” for simpler communication), and Liberty Shield is largely about the exploration into leveraging absolute logical constructs (e.g. logic that no human being can honestly defy) with the same undeniable strength that objectivity brings to technology (e.g. carefully building a house from the strongest available materials and objectively proven techniques, not from mud with more mud constantly cheaply added to retain some sense of having a house).
Stay tuned, which can obviously include passive input (mental absorption) or constructively expressive contribution to the societal need to form the rule-of-oblaw to continue the justifiable effort to primarily prevent law abuse — logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction.
To end on a high note, certainly worth repeating for emphasis, legislating the rule-of-oblaw is the only option for a positive future.