The AM Forum

Apparently, a federal anti-DUI program is training police officers to draw blood from uncooperative drivers.
Yes, it's apparently perfectly legal, according to the Supremes. Cops are permitted to forcibly restrain suspected drivers and draw a blood sample.

I read about this growing practice today and I am absolutely outraged. Why isn't this practice a clear violation of the 5th Amendment?

-------------------------------

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/14/federal-dui-program-has-idaho-cops-drawing-blood/?print-friendly


BOISE – When police Officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’ ” Dowell said.

It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it’s still the main reason that drunken driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breathe into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood – a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunken driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest, and it was carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ DUI Committee.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as their state’s hospital or clinical phlebotomists, but they do it under a highly compressed schedule, and some of the curriculum is cut.

That’s because officers don’t need to know how to draw blood from a foot or other difficult sites, or from an infant or medically fragile patient, said Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers.

Instead, they are trained on the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none of those sites is accessible, they’ll take the suspect to the hospital for testing.

In a nondescript Boise office building where the Nampa officers were trained, Dowell scanned his subject and prepared to draw blood. Chase Abston, an officer taking his turn playing a suspect, recoiled a bit, pressing his back deeper into the chair.

Dowell slid a fine-gauge needle into the back of Abston’s hand. Abston, who had been holding his breath, slowly exhaled as his blood began to flow.

All the officers seemed like they’d be more comfortable if their colleagues were wielding sidearms instead of syringes. But halfway through the second day of training, with about 10 venipunctures each under their belts, they relaxed enough to trade barbs alongside needle jabs.

They’re making quick progress, Watson said. Their training will be complete after they have logged 75 successful blood draws.

Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too.

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned “about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained.”

Alan Haywood, Arizona’s law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

It's 2 O'clock in the morning, a suspect is losing operator control of his or her vehicle and upon inspection is noticeably/obviously intoxicated and is becoming combative over DUI questioning and procedures...Your by yourself awaiting on Backup...

What do you Do...Worry about Rights....Nup...

73
Jack.

The cop gets the Taser out and immobilizes the uncooperating suspect who is allegedly out of control.
It's getting scary out there!

Fred

Nazis.......

Jack, every state has an implied consent law. Refuse to be tested and you lose your driving privileges, generally the same penalty as if you were actually found to be intoxicated.

I want to know why a person can invoke their Constitutional rights and refuse a breathalyser test (and pay a price for doing so), but they can be forcibly tied down, stabbed with a needle for a blood test, and any such evidence used against them.

This has nothing to do with the logistics of dealing with a combative drunk for which administering a blood test would be the last thing on an officer's mind. They got Tasers, billy clubs and cuffs. No syringe needed.

First thing Bill is I wanted to take into account that Officer, there's Two sides to every story, walk in his or her shoes First Look at both sides to the issue.

Now Driving is a Privilege not a right an to many times the two are confused an there have been to many Alcohol Related Deaths an Accidents, it's gona get worse, but the one thing that is Best,, first,, is to Respect the officers requests then leave the fighting for the daytime at the hearing...

Getting Jabbed with a needle is no picnic I understand that an you feel personally obligated to refuse the actions you have to understand once you turn that key you are now responsible for all around you. and the 2500 pound machine you are operating, these scare tactics that some are employing come from a long line of peer pressure groups an statistics amounted over the years an right now the DUI system rules...you don't want to get jabbed don't drive call the wife like I did when I was allowed out..LOL...

Personal rights do not exceed the DOTS rules. simple...Keep on Venting, Hey I lived for 22 Years as a Driver an I have had Dogs in my truck, been Bodily searched, I don't know how many times get used to it there's more coming. Hell I got fined one time in CT for having Colored sheets in my Bunk bed...the reason...back then it was Class A drivers are required White sheets in order to lend medical Aid....the Fine was 35 dollars yes sir...



73
Jack.

In Idaho and Arizona of all places.  I might have expected this in California or New York.

This is just nuts.   Besides the invasion, imagine the technique.  I've had experienced lab nurses having trouble doing a neat job.  Can you imagine police officers doing this.

 " I might have expected this in California or New York. "

And put lawyers out of work???


klc

Got to thinking they ought to do a forcible blood test on *everyone* arrested for any offense.

Someone sticks up a convenience store, the blood test shows drugs and alcohol, therefore by definition the perp is obviously not in their right mind, they were mentally impaired. They get a year of rehab and probation instead of hard time.

This could backfire.

His shoes aren't "the issue". Bill is abasolutely right here. This IS a direct violation of the search and seisure protection of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Taking ones BLOOD is, by any measure, unreasonable. There are other, well defined, procedures for dealing with drunks!

Now the question becomes, How in the world did it get approval from the Federal Supreme Court?

I guess you get what you vote for!!

Buddly, how quaint of you to quote that obviously obsolete document. ;) After all, this is the New World Order.

There has been a steady practical erosion of personal liberty ever since Eisenhower warned us about the MIC in 1961.

America is firmly in the grips of a nexus between government and corporate power, the classic definition of fascism. It is neither right or left wing, republican or democrat. All that stuff amounts to phoney distraction.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:





America has been drifting into this for many years, under Democratic and Republican rule alike. (9/11 greatly accelerated this process). The Bill of Rights has been effectively subverted and marginalized into nothingness, declared to be only a historic relic.

http://shii.org/knows/Fascism_comes_wrapped_in_the_flag


                                                             

No, No it ain't upon entering any Highway or Roadway You have accepted and or been tested on the rules of motor vehicle operation and you have upon entering the roadway accepted the Operational Practices and Rules of the Governing body that governs that roadway, this is not operation on Private property. Boy this is a good one for ignorance of the Law Types...I hope it's well Broadcast out there.

Personal Rights do not supersede the operational authority of the state or federal governments where a Privilege is granted and operation is in question....sorry...

73
Jack.

This law has been on the books since 1966, or so the story goes. The Supreme's back in LBJ's time made it law. It's slightly off topic but in the construction industry if your hurt or god forbid killed in an accident one of the first actions taken is to test for drugs and alcohol with a blood test. Any trace amounts of illegal drugs found in a persons system shift the blame to the injured (or killed) no matter who is at fault. Insurance claim denied. Same with serious car crashes. In the case of forcing a blood test on a drunk driver, simple case opened and closed convictions. Lazy justice.

Just wait till some cop uses a dirty needle to draw blood because he ran out of unused ones, was just plain careless, or had an attitude problem, and gives somebody HIV or some other blood-borne disease.

While we are on the subject of venting, here is another outrage that is getting increasingly worse in to-day's society, and will inevitably get even more draconian following the Phillip Garrido case.

http://www.schr.org/node/145

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/6

It is unconstitutional, regardless the twist and squirm of the ill-begotten law. It is fair to defend oneself against an attack like that. It is an outright attack, to bleed someone against their will. it could be deadly too, if something is not just right, and a person has the right to use deadly force to defend himself against deadly situations. And I can see the lawsuits coming. #1 a policeman is not a doctor. #2 it's going to cause pain and bruises because they are going to screw it up every time. If they gotta have blood, they best take the suspect to the local hospital and have an MD do it. so it pisses me off too. And do they think that certain people won't come hunting, maybe years later, for the cop that forcibly violated them like that? to draw a little blood of their own? The thing just isn't right and will only lead to further misery. Next they'll want to search body cavities and the like.

OK. So now if you refuse a blood draw you risk being tortured with "pain compliance" (a.k.a. taser) until you become more compliant, or dead. 

There used to be a thing called the 5th amendment which prevented the accused from being a witness against himself in a criminal trial. The men who wrote that amendment were thinking of the rack, the red hot poker, and the tender embrace of the iron maiden. The 4th amendment also guarantees that citizens may be "secure in their persons...against unreasonable search and siezure."  But then again rights really are considered a quaint anachronism today.

In less than 100 years we have lost much. Freedom of speech, basically gone. Free exercise clause (religion), ignored. Freedom of the press, compromised. Right to public and speedy trial by a jury of peers, gone. Right to keep and bear arms, gone. 9th and 10th amendments, ignored, Right to keep the fruits of one's labor, now a gift from government. Freedom of association, gone, Right to travel, now a revokable privilege. Right to ride on a public roadway in a conveyance, now regulated as a licensed commercial activity. Unreasonable search and siezure, now ignored as an inconvenience. Eminent domain, now excersized on behalf of private entities if there is a "public good". We don't need to go on. The Bill of Rights is now fish wrap.

Remember that we are only two states votes away from them being able to call a new constitutional convention.

Sleep well.

73, Jim
WA2AJM/3

Those with a clear conscience always do.

That all may be true, Jack.
But if a law enforcer needs to gather evidence against you there is a procedure and it is spelled out in the 4th Amendment. By the 5th Amendment you are guarded against providing evidence against yourself. You need not answer any questions and you need not GIVE UP YOUR BLOOD AS TESTIMONY AGAINST YOURSELF.

This is so basic. But, given the state of our public schools over the last 40 years it's no wonder crap like this sees the light of day.

I had to go to "Snopes" to check this one out, it seems crazy to imagine that our government would allow such, it is clearly a violation of our rights. Snopes has nothing on it, the concept is so crazy that I was hoping it was a spoof.  ???

If law enforcement needs a body search warrant to obtain DNA samples, logic follows that they would need the same with blood.
Don brings up a good point about chance for disease, sampling body fluids will lying on the street, hooked up to a TASER is not the ideal sterile environment.

The story is confirmed at several sources, I found this enlightening article -->> http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5359-federal-program-to-draw-blood-from-dui-suspects

The next step is going to be blood and DNA screening for drug use, genetic defects, and other tidbits which can be used by the government insurance mafia on newborns or the elderly as a basis of approving or denying treatment.
Of course we can count on the banking industry getting into the act as well, and loans will be approved or denied based upon your "genetic markers".
Such testing will also be used in employment screening, it may be illegal now, but just watch, its a brave new world. (read loss of Bill of Rights)

Is there nothing sacred?

You have to ask yourself.
How long has it been since you drove in a condition that someone would even want to take a sample?
If you are a drunk and driving around I have no mercey for your rights. Since a drunk  doesn't give a crap about the other people on the road.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers either but there is a big difference between suspicion/accusation and proven fact.  One would hope the uproar from this will pretty quickly result in an appeal and a new Supreme Court review of this issue.

Do we expect the average officer under less than perfect conditions will be more successful than the Ohio executioner?  http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/15/ohio.execution.problems/index.html?iref=newssearch

When you turn that key an enter a roadway you have accepted responsibility for others safety and the rules of operation on the roadway, The basic pretense here is the confusion on personal rights upon incident, if the Law states that at such an event you will be Blood Tested, you have mistreated your privilege then there is no argument, you accepted that when you pulled out an DUI is upon incident it's not personal.

Those State Troopers that are being Prepared for this an are responsible for these actions aren't gona be using dirty needles an nails...LOL...No...You Scare me my rights are falling off my shirt sleeve cuffs..LOLOLOL....

73
Jack.

There wouldn't be a problem ifn they used clip leads!

Jack,

In a society defined by the Constitution (where's Irb?), things will be imperfect. So, the protection of the 4th and 5th amendment is for the greater good of the society at large. It is not proper or appropriate to expect or think that the enforcement of laws, the failure to enforce laws (in various ways) as the result of the Constitutional protections, is somehow a problem or issue. Quite the contrary, this is necessary for a free people to live in freedom and liberty.

What you said about the police officer's shoes? Sure, tough job. Don't want to do that job, get another. The goal of our society is not to make the police have an "easier time" of it. No one wants a police officer to be hurt, but that unfortunately is an inevitable aspect of the job. As are highway deaths and accidents part of driving.

The idea that driving is a privilege is extremely problematic, and likely completely false and unconstitutional. Here's the problem with it. Let's say that the government declares that driving privileges are revoked for everyone - how does anyone get anywhere? You can not enter upon private property, right? Let's say that the government says that you can no longer enter upon any federal, state, county or local road? Now, are you not a prisoner against your will?

The fact is that the "Government" does not actually own anything the government is present only to act on behalf of the citizens - who in fact own everything (on paper anyhow)! Ask Irb??  ;D

This thing is constantly being shaved by those who prefer a form of fascism or dictatorship over a democratic republic of free citizens.

Things like this are SERIOUS ABRIDGEMENTS of citizen's rights - the so called "sovereignty" granted to all via the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution by the founders.

Think about it.

              _-_-WBear2GCR

Why is it that this program is being instituted in Texas, Idaho and Arizona, three states where citizens generally seem to be more anti big brother government than elsewhere?

And why hasn't the manure hit the rotary ventilation apparatus in those places?

The local newspaper story that I read said that Phoenix police are drawing 400 blood samples a month. This is not an aberration.

Here in CO, citizens are given the opportunity of driving around the occasional DUI checkpoints by means of warning signs that such are ahead. Also photo radar speed traps. (State constitution and court rulings)

Doing so hasn't made a bit of difference in our state DUI statistics. A cop once told me that highly intoxicated drivers will usually not try to avoid being tested, anyway.

If this is true, some questions must be asked. How many times has this actaully been done? Is such a procedure SOP in any state? This almost sounds like one of those laws that is never enforced. There are tons of them on the books.


Another interest part is this.



God forbid someone gets a trial. After all, it's easier to have the cop arrest and try and sentence them road side. Of course the lawyers will be outraged. And since they run the justice system (trial lawyers run the Federal government), I see this law going away. After all, money talks and DUIers walk.

Well it reads good Bear and you can confuse it up all you want But We are granted Driving as a Privilege my Friend and that is my only interest in this. I spent 22 years of my life learning how to get it right everyday out there one day it's Defensive Operation then the next it's Offensive depending on area time load factors road conditions etc. Drunks at night I hope they Jab the hell out of them just like children we only remember Pain an Hunger good for them stick'em good maybe some will think twice before turning the key... ;D

But the Rules and Laws deemed by the states and Fed rule out there you guys keep throwing Personal rights issues into this an that's fine right up to the time the man pulls you over an where's your personal rights.. Gone...you either respect the Law or he or she asks you to exit the vehicle an your rights are handed out to you piece meal.

My only interest in this is Vehicle Operational Safety and the Flawed DUI system that doesn't treat the problem it's it's own animal and has created an infrastructure that herds the mass in an out and everyone along the way gets a piece of the take.

On the Highways your obliged to their laws your rights only exist in the mind they take a back seat...."ye shall Yield the right of way" Remember that years ago an how it was drove into our heads...I wonder if that's still in the drivers manual today.


73
Jack.

Jack, you are mixing two completely unrelated things. Yes, driving is a privilege. That does not mean you give up all your rights when you sign your driver's license. If you mess up, they can take away your driving privilege but they cannot take away your rights. That is the issue here, rights not privileges.

The problem I have with that is our near total lack of public transport, while at the same time, so many communities are structured nearly exclusively for the use of the automobile.  For many people, losing the "privilege" to drive would mean that they lose the "privilege" of gainful employment (no way to get to and from work), medical care (no way to get to the doctor) and even the "privilege" of nutrition (no way to get to and from the store or market, the nearest one which may be tens of  miles away). In many communities across the country the streets don't even have sidewalks, so to even try to travel somewhere by foot can be virtually suicidal.

Nationwide, we have 40,000 to 55,000 road deaths per year.  Imagine if some brand new consumer product were introduced to the public and put on the market to-day, and the first year it caused 50,000 deaths nationwide and many more times that in permanent injuries. That product would be recalled, taken off the market immediately and the manufacturer would no doubt end up facing a lengthy prison term and owing $jillions in liability.  Yet we take for granted 50,000 road deaths every year and think little about it unless it happens to a family member or someone we know; otherwise we always assume it will happen to "the other fella".

In one year alone, road deaths nationwide come close to the total number of deaths throughout the duration of either the Korean or the VietNam war.  Where are all the protests?

Wonder if cops will have to carry malpractice insurance :o

Don, the same can be said for everything from Tylenol to beer to flying a private plane to McDonald's cheeseburgers and Kentucky Fried Chicken.  People generally have the right in our society to assume the risks that they choose to.

Really...I thought we were talking about Authority and Blood work.
Stevie it's a confusion of Incidents that's fine it's no problem with me I've lived my share out there it's nice to be done with it, it's over for me I'm retired now you guys fight the battle with them with the personal rights issues.
But you have to understand one thing Steve, as a Pro Driver they granted themselves authority over my life 24-7 at home and off duty time included so as far as Rights my Rights there were none just don't get caught doing anything and why should regular auto drivers not be held for same...oh no your above the Commercial issue it was like a curse one effected the other an visa-verse...

Not a Problem here,.... Don your right about Public Transport it sux.

73
Jack.

I see another problem with cops drawing blood. Beside the probability of blood eventually getting drawn from a haemophiliac, without a doubt if this becomes a routine practice, an officer taking blood will sooner or later manage to jab himself with the needle after taking the sample (a mishap that happens too often even to medical professionals under clinical conditions), risking exposure to HIV, hepatitis, or some other blood borne disease.

Below is a quote from the blog Bruce/UJR linked in his post.


I referred to this aspect in my earlier post as a reason for denying care to injured or killed construction workers. A person injured or killed in those situations doesn't have a choice either.

Let's suppose a driver suspected  of operating under the influence has a legal prescription for Valium and has smoked a joint 5 days ago. He took a Valium two hours ago. He rear ends a car and the arresting officer takes blood. Metabolites showing illegal drug abuse are found as well as evidence of a legal drug. Is this enough to lock him up for being under the influence of an illegal substance? Let's take out the pot smoking part, the blood test shows only a low level of a perscribed drug. Will he go to jail?

I know, I know, Driving a car after taking a sedative isn't exactly safe either but the point is the hypothetical perp in this case probably won't go to jail because he has a prescription for that drug, will the illegal drug smoking (5 days before) vehicular terrorist go to jail?

I don't use illegal drugs. Looking at the death and distraction on the US/Mexico boarder should make anybody (with a conscience) think twice before buying a bag but again, that's not the point. Point is our constitutional rights are being traded for cheep convictions.

I'd like to go one more if I may....Please..

Reason, I just had a thought while I was going through my Chemo Ya know most times if they didn't need anything real bad where they went through the port in my chest they would just pluck my finger with this little thing and they had the machine right there to test my blood for my cellular levels.

OK, now as well it can show the girls there my cholesterol levels an such and for all the panic here why would they need to use needles hell that little pluck and that machine is all they need.

Just a thought.


73
Jack.

Mike, this goes back to Bruce's earlier comments..What's to prevent *anything* found in a blood test from being used against you? A genetic predisposition to cancer? An HIV infection? Liver function? Diabetes? Tobacco use?

While your medical records are supposed to be private, arrest and trial records are not. They can test for whatever they want to, and the results become part of the public record available for anyone, including the press, to obtain.

Your right Bill, I hadn't thought of it that way. OK, so the perp has HIV and the jabber pokes himself while taking a sample. Now the perp is up for attempted murder 1.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show up here and say this is all just a joke. It's unbelievable.

The death and destruction currently taking place in Northern Mexico and near the US/Mexico border is a result of our ill-conceived War on Drugs and draconian laws. If we took a more common-sense approach to substance use, something like the way they handle it in the Netherlands, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.  I think the "you smoke a joint, you're supporting terrorism" campaign is laughable.

I suspect the following may explain the real reason behind training cops to forcefully draw blood, although I haven't read a recent update to the story:


http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/329/driving.shtml

Wonder what the ACLU has to say about this..?..

I'm surprised they haven't started to require a drug test before you can get a ham licence or renewal, since the FCC initiated this "character" thing, in which amateur licences can be revoked for offences that have nothing remotely to do with radio.

LOL. And pencils are the cause of misspelled words.

Does this mean 'pea in a cup' could replace CW

I have not drank alcohol since many many years. I used to like it very much, but I don't like it any more myself. I have no pity for anyone who operates machinery while intoxicated either. I used to get drunk, but I never drove drunk.

not to totally repeat what was said re: valium, but considering only the legal prescriptions..

Besides the unforgivable violation and bloodrape of the body, my other concern with this blood thing is for people who make some mistake unrelated to intox (like hitting a city titty or some little thing, which we all know any policeman can use as an excuse to stop a driver) and then the policeman demands a blood sacrifice to satan. I have run into at least one policeman who was a cruel and sadistic bastard. He's gonna love this, being able to pick and choose who he wants to jab a needle into and I would not be surprised if he would use the same needle.

Everyone knows profiling is a common practice, maybe it's necessary, maybe it's not. No expert here. But think of being profiled, and then being subject to being gouged for blood at a cop's whim, as they can make up any crap they want, for any reason, and it will be believed as Gospel in front of their supervisor and in court. That is alot of power in the hands of single fallible humans who already have alot of authority as necessary to their work.

Many people must take prescription medicines - such people then could be falsely accused of intoxication simply based on the legally prescribed medications they must take to function well enough to work. Certain medicines that are new to the illegal user or to the new patient are intoxicating. They are not intoxicating to the long term patient. For example vicodin has a strong intox effect till it has been taken for a while, then there is no more high, just the desired effect of the dismissal of a debilitating pain.

What's the "legal limit" for (your necessary prescription medicine here)? All the old farts with no cartilage in your knee and spinal stenosis who still have to work for a living, Get ready for that next.

Consider the stuff some people have to take - xanax and vicodin and antidepressants and cocktails of various prescription drugs where the physicians' label says "it is not fully understood how this works but it is believed that..."

Then there is the other side of the coin - when a person stops taking their meds, they can get really whacko - but the blood test might be clear. Then what?

It would be easier to add a sobriety tester to vehicles. They work by checking the ability to concentate rationally. But that'll never fly, and determined people will find a way to get around it.

I agree with you, Bear, except in ONE very important point.

The Declaration and Constitution do not "grant" us rights.
They simply acknowledge the rights we, as free men, are born with.

The growing idea that rights are granted and secured by the government down to us is disturbing. It is where socializm gets it's foot in the door. So many, for the last 4 generations, have been raised believing their rights and prosperity stem from the federal government. The definition of "free men" is being lost in the Marxist chant of "common good". Remember, The USSR and Nazi Germany were both built around the death pole of "for the common good".

A strong INDIVIDUALIZM is the only thing good for the common good.

Your views are outdated. Change has occurred.

"The Warren court did not break free from the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the Federal or State government must do on your behalf."

Some have to catch up, it's responsibility issue not personal rights...Commercial Ops have been putting up with these things for years, pull you outta the truck make you go no 1 in the cup on the spot no matter what time of day, onboard inspections with no legal entrance papers when I owned the truck Dog searches for drugs through my clothing through my sleeper area...lol man the four wheelers don't know how good you got it now, but get ready it's coming soon because there's Federal Highway use monies involved here an states don't like to miss out. I'm so glad in a way I'm done with the CDL system in this country I didn't wana retire this soon but Nature said different oh well.

This is not another way of chipping away at our rights it comes from over population over used highway systems an serious accident claims an stats over to many years an folks that feel they have the Right to do as they damn well please..

Your rights well be perfectly accounted for upon inspection if they start this they'll have it down to a system of ease of use I wouldn't be surprised if there's a small handheld machine already being built for this and it's nothing more than let me see your finger...an if your using drugs to damn bad get a scrip...I seen in some posts where there is concern for previous drug use an this system finding it after the fact for the last 15 years at Estes we were tested practically every month so as long as a scrip was produced not a problem...so my life was on the line everyday weekends etc..did I complain no it's my Job an Now it's becoming everyones Job lifes a Bitch...are they knocking your doors down an forcing this at your residence walking in the street stopping you for a check bothering your children at school an forcing this No...I'll worry Socialism when it arrives.


73
Jack.

I consider those mandatory whiz tests to be another example of going wrong.

They should be mandated in the event of an accident, a job performance issue, or for some other real and tangible reason.

And that's it.

I realize there is going to be disagreement with this opinion! But there no moral difference between forced blood tests and and mandatory or random whiz testing other than pushing the concept one step further. Once everyone gets used to forced blood testing, the potential next steps are frightening. 

As my parents generation would say-
It could only happen in America.

I don't buy into the idea of all those "isms" as great conspiracies circling above us like vultures just waiting for the moment to descend on their prey.  That seems a little paranoid to me.  Better don your tinfoil hat and watch out for the black helicopters.

Since the dawn of history, people and groups of people throughout any country and throughout the world have promoted a near-infinite range of agendas, including but not limited to capitalism, nazism, socialism, marxism,fundamentalism, corporatism, etc.  Everybody wants to promote his pet agenda and these all compete on the world stage, often violently, but most "conspirators" don't have their act together well enough to achieve anything before they begin attacking each other. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

A state of chaos might be a better description.  Perhaps a degree of chaos is the best thing we have in our arsenal to prevent some sinister conspiracy from enslaving us.  Too much law 'n order equals tyranny.

Whether we are talking about politics, amateur radio, the environment, the economy, religion or anything else of concern to us, people need to examine each idea on its own merits, pros and cons, and not become blinded by mindless ideology and dogma.

If some specific idea can work so that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, I am not too concerned whether you would call it capitalistic, socialistic, communistic or individualistic.

We pretty much have a mixed bag of "isms" in the workings of government, the economy and society, all interacting with one another. It would be very dangerous for it not to be that way. History is full of the disasters that happened when a single ideology, or "ism" was allowed to dominate.

Well OK who was it Jefferson that said " the only way this will work if there's a revolution once in awhile" I think it was him have we reached that point I don't think so, I don't feel any big draw on my rights now, there has to be a certain amount of ism's in the democratic mix for a good go at it, if everybody was on the same side in Congress what gets done same with anything.

But as population increases as does control it's a given, Actually a Blood test is better than a breathalyzer test internally an could actually benefit a person at a hearing in some circumstances. See I have confidence in our State Patrol Officers, Local Cops...eeh..some good some bad...and something like this in their operational bag of tricks could be a Plus...If it catches one ding a ling who should know better a life is saved somewhere..

I remember when everybody bitched about the breathalyzer test hey who do they think they are...make me blow in a tube is that machine calibrated recently....

73
Jack.

Yep, those dogmatic, fanatics who had a single-minded focus on liberty and freedom in 1776 sure screwed things up. We definitely don't want or need people like that now. It's better to be relativistic and muddle things up rather than be clear and concise. This way no one is right or wrong. Instead we're all right and all wrong. Stand for nothing and fall for anything. This sort of brain dead approach just allows the government to continue to increase its power and we the people continue to get screwed.

Right on Steve!  Just ignore the man behind the curtain.  Everything's wonderful!  ::)

They had neither the Population the Infrastructure or Social enigmas present today so Idealism was the course of action. There is a paragraph in those documents that states if a certain set of circumstances arises shows itself in Government which it has Three times that I can think of it is the responsibility of the citizenry to step forward and break up this activity....Nobody moved a finger...Anyone can enjoy the Libertarian's view I did matter of fact most of my life I like to share those ideals with others..but see it's all in the teaching of the young and what follows.

and the willingness to step forward and nobody earning over 5 figures is going to do that.

73
Jack.





  

Huh? Please explain how population or infrastructure has anything to do with pursuing a course of freedom or following the Constitution.

                                Happy Birthday US Constitution !






              http://constitutioncenter.org/ncc_progs_Constitution_Day.aspx

The second greatest story ever told.

OK Stevie I go one more with ya if ya want, No disrespect is meant here.

Very good on the generalities, Freedom and the Constitution, :D where's Liberty...again no disrespect..

I've always noticed that population growth and the size of the Machine it creates has a Direct contrast on the lives across any country Freedom does not come without responsibility and the Constitution is a Ghost people fall back on to Justify a position.

The Libertarians Dream is the Individual, Nothing should act on that..this country is just about out of room for this course of action. Now what..?

73
Jack.

Resistance if futile. 
You will be assimilated.

So, if I get you correctly, Iran has more freedom than we do? After all, they only have 65 million people and we have 300 million.

LOL I hear ya...maybe that's what I need Bob...They won't let me have a beer yet..Hows the machine.?

They have what they choose, and they're going through the same thing we had with Bush and his Brother....Control....

73
Jack.

It doesn't matter how many people we have. Had the truth of individual liberty been taught thruout our recent history we wouldn't be chatting about this. It was revived a bit in the mid 80's and it started the longest growth in jobs and the economy since the end of WW2. Unfortunatly the lack of education (read dumbing down) kicked in and here we are.

The American revolutionaries did not start out with a single minded focus on  liberty and freedom.  There was plenty of dissension within their ranks. The one thing they were single minded about was that they were pissed off at King George and the corrupt, ass-licking regime.  Taxation without representation.  At the beginning of the unrest, they had not considered declaring independence, but were standing up for their rights as guaranteed by the Crown to loyal British subjects, that they felt were being illegally denied to them.  It was only later that they finally realised that their cause was hopeless and that the only solution would be to sever ties entirely from the Mother Country.  Our Revolution would have been easily put down and would now be only a footnote in history if the Crown had not had other cats to whip at the time and France had not come to our aid. 

On the home front, after the Declaration, only about a third of our population was pro-independence.  Another third were loyalists.  The remaining third just wanted to go on about their daily business and didn't care.

Our success in our Revolution was but a simple twist of fate.  The French didn't quite make out so well with theirs, even though theirs was inspired by the success of ours.  One of the events that triggered the French Revolution was that King Louis had bankrupted the country helping us out. But don't think for a moment that the French had any altruistic motive in sending  La Fayette & Co to help us in our bid for independence.  They were mainly interested in one more punch that they could land on their arch enemy, Britain, to deprive her of her American colonies, and decided to take the fullest advantage of the situation.

Right. By your standards they were fanatics out of step with the main stream and therefore dangerous. Hmmmm.

And our founders did start out with a dogmatic focus on freedom, liberty and rights. That was what the whole thing regarding taxation and representation was about and it was all in the construct of being English citizens. Later, they argued about how to achieve it but not the principles themselves.

There was little in common between our revolution and the French revolution. They were focused on killing of the rich, not building a new and free country. They had no real ideals or guiding principles. Thus it failed, as has most every other revenge based "revolution." Some just take a little longer than others.

 

I can tell you from the street medic point of view that starting an IV line on a combative patient, which is almost the same technique as blood draws, is not an easy thing.  You take a grossly intoxicated/high/hypoglycemic combative patient and you had better have a LOT of help.  As far as DUI drivers, I have seen enough of their results not to shed too many tears for bad [for them] legal results against them.  I do, hovever, worry about the little-by-little erosion of the original constitutional rights.  Let's face it, a lot of the media is anti-gun and could care less if the second amendment is there.  But, the same group does not realize that if one right goes, theirs [as in first amendment] could be next.