Only In Indiana. . .

[Y]

Yes, I agree that I have every right to get drunk (or high in my case  ) and I have every right to drive a car, but the combination of those two states can be deadly.

That's a possibility, but it's not an act until someone's person or property is injured/damaged etc..

An aside which goes to the point I've been making:  If you check your state's laws, I do suspect you'll find that as they are now you have no right to get drunk or high nor any inherent right to drive.

Do you see what I'm getting at?  Our laws should be based only on the causative act, otherwise we continually have our rights eroded away and the government/society more authoritarian.

[Purplelady1040]

Of course, I knew exactly the line you were going to take and you're wrong - just like PL - and your incorrect line of thinking is exactly why drug laws are resistant to change and we have ridiculous laws surrounding drinking.

The the only act which should be chargeable is the one where someone's person or property is injured/damaged etc. - those are the only instances where another's rights are actually infringed.  Otherwise, neither the state nor society should have any interest.

If one is high on drugs and gets behind the wheel and injures or kills someone, the law will get involved.  I didn't put that in my comment but figured it would have been understood that the law would get involved! I apologize for not making that more clear on that!