Forcible blood draws (I got to vent)

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ka3zlr]

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...

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.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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.

[k4kyv]

But We are granted Driving as a Privilege my Friend and that is my only interest in this

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?

[wa2dtw]

Wonder if cops will have to carry malpractice insurance

[Bill, KD0HG]

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".

 Where are all the protests?

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.

[ka3zlr]

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.

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.

[k4kyv]

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.

[Mike/W8BAC]

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

The program is expected to cause problems for some people even if they are not driving while intoxicated. Marijuana, for example, is converted by the body into inactive metabolites which remain in the blood for up to a week. So even if somebody used the drug several days before and the effects have long since disappeared, tests will come up positive and the driver will be charged with a crime he or she did not actually commit.

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.

[ka3zlr]

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.

[Bill, KD0HG]

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.

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.

[Mike/W8BAC]

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.

[k4kyv]

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.

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:

"Drugged Driving" Campaigners Open New Front with Federal Legislation (3/19/04) ...DRCNet reported on the opening of a campaign led by drug czar John Walters and backed by self-interested drug testing consultants to crack down on "drugged driving," or operating a motor vehicle while high. Walters, backed up by research and recommendations from the drug test consulting firm the WalshGroup, called on states to enact zero tolerance per se laws against drugged driving.

Per se laws assume that a certain level of a drug in one's system is prima facie evidence that one is intoxicated. State drunk driving laws, where a blood alcohol level of 0.08% gets one an automatic drunk driving conviction, are examples of such laws. The difference between per se drunk driving laws and the per se drugged driving laws envisioned by Walters (and already enacted by eight states, according to the American Prosecutors Research Institute), is that the drugged driving laws will set the amount of drugs in one's system that would trigger a drugged driving conviction at zero. Under such laws, a person who smokes a joint Friday night could be pulled over and arrested for driving while intoxicated Monday morning, long after the high has worn off, but while the notoriously long-lasting cannabis metabolites linger.

Now, Congress has joined the campaign with two bills introduced in the last two weeks, one that creates a model zero tolerance per se drugged driving law for the states, and one that would penalize the states for failing to implement such laws. On March 4, Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) introduced H.R. 3907, which would take federal highway transportation dollars away from "states that do not enact laws to prohibit driving under the influence of an illegal drug." The bill would strip 1% of federal highway funds from states that do not enact such laws by 2006, with the percentage doubling each year up to a ceiling of 50%. And states must create mandatory minimum penalties for drugged driving to comply with the bill.

Five days later, Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH) introduced H.R. 3922, which calls for model legislation for the states to be crafted within one year from its passage. According to H.R. 3922, the model drugged driving law must include a provision defining the crime of drugged driving as occurring when a person drives "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance." In other words, a zero tolerance per se drugged driving law.

"Of course no one is defending driving while impaired," said Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, "but that's not what this federal push is about. Under these statutes, they don't have to prove actual impairment; instead, detecting even trace levels of illicit drugs or their metabolites is enough to garner a DUID [Driving Under the Influence of Drugs] conviction."

The campaign is about more than highway safety, said Armentano. "This is really the culmination of an all-out federal effort to not just crack down on impaired drivers, but to cast the net wide enough to target recreational drug users, particularly marijuana users."

The fight has been joined. Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin have already enacted such laws. But they have also been defeated at least twice, in Utah in February 2003, and last week in Hawaii.

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

[ka3zlr]

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

[k4kyv]

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.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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.

LOL. And pencils are the cause of misspelled words.

[WA1GFZ]

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

[Opcom]

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 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.

[WD8BIL]

...the so called "sovereignty" granted to all via the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution by the founders.

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.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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."

[ka3zlr]

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.

[Bill, KD0HG]

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. 

[AMroo]

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

[k4kyv]

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.

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.

[ka3zlr]

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.