Ah! Moussolini would be PROUD of you, sir! You think JUST like a Blackshirt!

Just BS'n, Heavenlyboy.
But, it feels good somebody would be proud of me. I catch a lot of grief in here by shinin' lights.
Keep up th' good works, Mon Ami.

OIC. Nice talkin with ya, bro. ttyl.

You can find common ground with anyone, especially when confronted with something like this, a blatant police state measure.


We'll discuss 9/11 elsewhere.

they can't do it . its always been unconstitutional invasion and the can't do it without a judges permission . if there doing it its just another attempt by the police to suspend your legal rights . they do that a lot thats why so many criminals get away with crimes . can you imagine that people after 50 years that illegal search s have been against the law are still being done and cases being thrown out of court . that some moron would still do that .

It gets even better here in Arizona as I am sure you are aware. You don't even have to be "Drunk". The way the law reads, "if you are impaired to the slightest degree..". One beer can get you thrown in the Tent City Gulag.

Perhaps he should defend this argument in a roomful of family who've lost others to the 'safe' drunk drivers on the road.

I would simply refer them to other drivers who cause more accidents/fatalities than drunks and assure them that they've been misled by the government. Simply take the irrational emotion out of this and stick to the verifiable data, and my argument is superior. (this is not to say that a drunk driving fatality is "good", but neither is a texting-related fatality, reaching-for-something-in-the-back-seat fatality, etc.)

It causes no harm?!

My ex's brother was killed by a drunk driver.

So? People are killed by all kinds of things. Causation is not correlation. (I don't mean to sound flippant, btw, I'm just sticking to the logic of the argument)

A drunk person should never be behind the wheel of a car!

Hvnly, I understand u have this hatred for our government. That's ur right. However, Drunk Drivers cause more fatalities an are in no way 'safe' an have absolutely no business bein on the road behind the wheel of a vehicle. I agree that idiots textin, puttin on makeup an such are also unsafe but they nowhere near take as many lives as drunk drivers. I booked in more than my fair share of drunk drivers while workin as a deputy sheriff. They had no business drivin. An as for safe, h*ll half of em couldn't even stand up straight.


My 16 yr old cousin was killed by one of ur so called 'safe' drivers. I've had friends killed over the years by ur so called 'safe' drivers. Emotion does play into yes. I wouldn't be human if it didn't.

If the car is the driver's property, no one has any business in dictating that. You can of course try to persuade him, call him a cab, etc., but that's it. If the person causes an accident, then a crime has occurred, and can be prosecuted.

To borrow a point from Mr Rockwell:
"But there’s a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law."

..."The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis."

Again, drunk drivers have no business getting behind the wheel of a car.

If they own the car, they do have business getting behind the wheel. They DON'T have business causing harm to others, however. That is the only extent that any law can logically/ethically be applied.

Ah took a little checking but found, you're talking about TX state supreme court. The US supreme court is still pretty iffy on that one and may strike that one down before long. They've already warned states that they should not be taking samples in the field... ever.

Personally I don't have a problem with it if it's presented as an option. The silly thing here is why require a blood sample and risk horrific lawsuits. Why not just make field breath tests no longer optional.

That is the biggest load of horse pucky I've ever heard.



There is no doubt that cell phones and other things cause a great many deaths, but the large numbers are there because the large number or idiots doing these things. By comparison there is only a handful of moronic @ssh0les driving while heavily intoxicated.

Your logic is both flawed and frighteningly blind. I sure hope you only kill yourself when you screw up... Sadly drunk drivers often survive to kill again.

I like the idea of this test, I'm not so sure I like the idea of police using it in the field. No disrespect meant to police officers but giving test is not their field of expertise and all the tests I've seen to date are too easy to miss use and get incorrect readings... both ways. I certainly don't want to see the innocent arrested wrongly, but neither do I want to see a drunk driver released back to the streets because the test was not administered properly.

The only people I want drawing my blood are people trained in the health field, period. And even some of them can't draw blood to save their own lives. Twice I had to ask for another person to draw my blood to prevent a bad blood taker from making road maps on my arms.

Drawing blood is an art. I don't want cops in vulnerable and emotional circumstances drawing blood. Besides the fact that I think it's dangerous for the cop, if he has to keep his wits about him at all times, he shouldn't have to be focusing on finding a vein for heaven sakes. What are these folks who made this law thinking..

I think cops are being asked to do things even they don't agree with. Maybe make the tests they use already mandatory, not giving refusal time to lower the results. But not some invasive blood drawing. I find that excessive.