Thanks to a recent ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals (9/10 judges are registered democrats- just for the record) have ruled that someone who is driving drunk and consents to a blood test cannot do so because they are drunk. Also, they cannot be forced against their will to have blood drawn. In other words, they get a free pass until they kill someone and then different laws are in play. So until a person is murdered, drunk drivers will be given a near free pass. Only in the People's Republic of Oregon, commrade.
I know so many people in Oregon aspire to a form of Scandinavian socialism. They should know that in Sweden, that the legal blood alcohol limit is 0.0. If you're pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, you have no choice but to submit to a breathalyser. There is a bit of wiggle room, because in the first months of the law people who had used breath freshener were blowing more than 0.0, but it is ironclad otherwise. The penalty? You lose your license for a period between 1-5 years.
At the same time people have been prosecuted using Breathalyzer and videos from the impairment tests. While I don't condone drunk driving, I also don't condone letting the state walk all over your rights as a citizen just because they want to. What you don't seem to understand is that if you let them cross the line in one place, will let them cross the line all over the place. Everybody knows our legal system isn't perfect. We strive to protect individual rights above and before the law. What I believe will happen one day, is that drunk driving will be mostly defeated through technology. People will have to breath into a breathalyzer to start their car. Cops already have flashlights that can determine blood alchohol level when shining it into your face when you first open your window and asking you if you have been drinking. Similar technology will make it so you cannot drive if you are drunk one day.
Seeing as how I can cut your car into little pieces and weld it back together, there is no way they are putting some bullshit breathalyzer in my car that I won't defeat.
Most cars require a computer to run these days. Older cars don't. How are you going to work around computer code? If the computer code doesn't recevie the proper "all clear" signal form the sensor, which is encrypted and generated by the sensor, how are you going to start your car? No code, no worky. How is your welder going to fix that? How are you going to register it at the DMV when they check it for tampering? Go ahead smart guy. Good luck with that.
Umm, my car was built in 1967 and is a 1968 model. You and your liberals can come take it at gunpoint if you want. I won't register it at the DMV if they require unconstitutional devices being installed as a condition of registration. If I felt like it I would do as I do with emissions equipment, install it for one day to get registered and then remove it. They also have programs for newer cars that can be used with a laptop to reprogram your car for performance reasons. Any stupid government program can be worked around by a 12 year old kid with a laptop. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence further, you make yourself look silly.
Funny how conservatives only invoke the constitution when THEIR rights are being supposedly infringed. When others' rights are threatened (Patriot Act), that's A-OK in their eyes.
The whole idea is public safety. To keep people from hurting others when drinking and driving. So for the courts to say a driver can't consent to being tested for drinking when he's drunk as his drunkenness prevents them from being able to properly determine to agree to any testing (this decision will be extended to include a breathalyzer) fails to take into account the very reason for preventing drinking & driving. It's like saying a person transported to the E/R can't legally consent for emergency medical services to save their life as they're too badly injured to agree to the treatment. And when doctors can't get informed consent, they are defenseless in court. A bombastically stupid decision from the courts.
Funny how people who don't know what they are talking about make comments about people being conservative. I would suggest that everyone resist any law that they feel is unconstitutional. How the fuck will it be thrown out if nobody fights it? I took one test on this website and I bordered on conservative and centrist. I took another test and thought my answers through with a bit more thought, here is a link. http://highperformanceolds.com/phpbb2-1/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1423 I am about fifth or sixth down the page. I never said I liked Bush or the Republicans more, they do often SAY things I tend to agree with even though they NEVER follow through.
Forced blood tests, as with UA's, are a violation of the 5th Amendment. It's as simple as that. This doesn't change anything else, and will not impact how many drunk drivers are convicted.
The cops (anywhere in the US) don't force anyone to take blood tests and the like. What they can do is suspend your license if you refuse.
I should have said coerced, not forced. Still, being punished for refusing to testify against yourself seems contrary to everything our Justice system is based on.
All govt. does is coerce people to do things. Why is this any different? I do question the need for drivers' licenses at all.
