RW> If the law says "a person WILL be arrested for
 RW> possession of ANY amount of a controlled substance".
 RW> If an officer finds a single marijuana seed in the
 RW> floor board of a car he HAS to arrest the driver.  If
 RW> he doesn't he can lose his job.
KA> If you would listen to what's being said to you instead of
KA> letting a bad experience color all your thinking, you'd know
KA> that, in the case of the LEO this is pure BS. If one
KA> marijuana seed being in the car is a violation of the law,
KA> he will arrest the driver. If the statute defines possession
KA> as x number of grams or ounces, he won't. 
Ok now its time for you to listen and I'll try not to
yell.  Not every time unless there is some kind of ZT
policy in effect.  If EVERY cop arrested EVERY person
they caught breaking EVERY law then there would be very
few people on the streets.
If you stopped someone for something don't you think
you could tell by the person and/or their record if
arresting them is the thing to do?  Or just maybe by
putting a scare into him is enough?
Here's an example for you.  You stop two people for
doing 10 mph over the limit on the highway.  One is a
mom in a minivan who has a clean driving record, is
frazzled at being stopped and tells you (when you ask)
that she was speeding because she was running late to
pick up her other kid and didn't want him to be at the
park waiting for her.
The other is a young guy driving a high performance
sports car who has six moving violations on his record,
acts urinated off that you dare to stop HIM and tells
you (when you ask) that you are wrong because he WAS
NOT speeding.
Now do you think the odds of the mom and the guy
getting a ticket are the same? 
KA> For example, I often have a single drink when we eat dinner
KA> out. Even though my breath would undoubdtedly smell like
KA> alcohol if I were stopped, the fact that we have zero
KA> tolerance for DUI doesn't bother me a bit. I am certain I
Strong laws on DUI don't bother me.  But because we
have declared a ZT on DUI we now regularly stop people
who are exercising their right of free travel for no
reason and with no PC and force them to summit to test
to PROVE that they haven't broken a law. 
Most people would be willing to say that they would
support a ZT on illegal weapons.  But would they be
willing to set up random weapon road blocks so the
police can search all the cars to make sure there are
no illegal weapons in the them?  After all when a LEO
stops someone he has the right, the courts have ruled,
to handcuff and search the people in the car and to
search the unlocked areas of the car "for the officer's
safety".
KA> would pass the breath test and field sobriety tests. Whether
KA> there were zero tolerance or not, I would hope the stopping
KA> officer would make certain that someone he stopped was NOT
KA> legally DUI.
Ah but you are guilty of DUI until you PROVE that you
are not.  What if the same standards were applied to
other crimes?
The ZT on DUI is a near perfect example of how ZT laws
can be taken to the extreme. 
KA> Some of the laws that may be enforced scare me a lot more
KA> than the people enforcing them. Prime example is
KA> confiscation of property _before_ a finding of guilt. Even
Why?  Don't you support ZT on drugs?  If so then you
should support a ZT on allowing drug dealers from
profiting from their crimes.  Another example of how
taking a law to extreme screws innocent people.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------