Based upon the foregoing evidence, this author has a clear preference for zero tolerance laws to deal with the increasing scourge of DUID.  The increasingly accepted Libertarian view is that such laws criminalize personal choices that cause no harm to citizens other than the drug consumer.  Laws requiring probable cause be first established before requiring a blood sample theoretically alleviate this concern, but are unconvincing to opponents of zero-tolerance laws.  Adoption of New Zealand’s approach is suggested as a means of gaining acceptance of zero tolerance laws without unduly harming Libertarian sensitivities.