Why is that a stupid thing to say?
Before the zero tolerance policy cops had discretion whether to ticket or not. After the policy they must issue a ticket to anyone going X over the limit.
Before the zero tolerance policy cops had discretion whether to ticket or not. After the policy they must issue a ticket to anyone going X over the limit.
Before the policy cops would have had discretion for people travelling at any speed. After the zero tolerance policy they now have zero tolerance for people travelling over 10 mph over the limit.
There's a difference between using the phrase "zero tolerance" to describe what happens in a certain situation and using the phrase "zero tolerance" to describe your policy when it has tolerance built into it.
(I un-downvoted your first post)
If you drive over what is posted + ten you will get a ticket. In the past it was up to the cop.
And....
The US has a zero tolerance alcohol policy over 0.08 after a 0.08 tolerance policy.
If that's your entire point its not a very compelling one.
There is a law against drunk driving that mentions a 0.08 threshold. There is a law against speeding that doesn't mention 10mph leeway.
Does "zero tolerance" imply that they will disregard all standard laboratory procedures, disregard the margin of error on the tests, and fire you even if the lab tech points out that the test technically returned a negative since the result was below the margin of error? No, "zero tolerance" isn't, literally interpreted, a statement about how the test will be executed. It is a statement about what happens after the test returns a positive.
Of course in practice "zero tolerance" means "we are going to do whatever the hell we want, and then wash our hands of responsibility". That is how "zero tolerance for guns" can turn into "nail this kid to the wall for eating a poptart".