Refuse a breathalyzer this weekend and you'll be giving blood

yes but those rights are good till it puts innocent citizens at risk.

are they saying dont drink? no
are they saying dont drive? no

if you choose to mix the above two, and get caught..deal with the consequences.

i mean look at the chain of events till you get to this stage.

drink
then drive
unsafe driving, gets pulled over
police asks for breathalyzer
refuses
THEN give blood.

if you want to drink and drive on a highway built for u and kill yourself, that's your business. but as of now other innocent people with families and kids travel next to you.

 

what about the opposite chain of evens
DON'T DRINK
then drive
Get pulled over
Police ask for a breathalyzer
you refuse
Then they EXTRACT your blood against your will

as it stands. . . . most people seem to be of the mind
If a Police officer says drop ya drawers and bend over. .YOU DO IT . . OR FACETHE CONSEQUENCES
If you refuse. . and he shoots you . .they will say .. WELL SHOULD HAVE DONE IT!! IF HE DID . . HE WOULD BE ALIVE TO DAY

Is that the kind of world we in now?
is this really America?


Rocket River
What would John Adams Say? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson?

 

Fatty Fat b*stard faints.

 

I like my rights. Millions of people have died for these rights. I would prefer not to give up rights for a little security. I am pretty sure half the people driving in austin past 2 are mostly drunk or really bad drivers.

 

An officer getting a search warrant to get your blood doesn't infringe on your rights. The fact that an officer takes the step of getting a judge to sign off on a search warrant fully complies with your fourth amendment rights. If a cop was just sticking you in the arm without a warrant or your consent - then complain, but your rights are fully being complied with under these circumstances. It seems that all of you who are complaining about this want MORE than you actually have a right to.

 

right to live > right to drink and drive...

 

It's funny because these guys were definitely not in lock step with each other. Ideals aside, some looked after their own interests more than others.

They had many varying conservative/liberal views. All of them were upper class and Adams was in some ways a royalist in the fact that he opposed the French Revolution and their achievement of the same rights that we won during ours. If I had to rank them it'd be Jefferson > Washington > Adams.

Not that we shouldn't look back to this period of time for inspiration. They were light years ahead of us on the philosophy of freedom because of their proximity to authoritarianism and had fresh access to new releases like Thomas Paine.

Nowadays that kind of antithetical "government power for the sake of freedom" thing is patriotic. The difference is now the electorate doesn't read anything longer than a snippet.

 

We all could probably agree that Prohibition was a massive failure. The same could easily be said of the War on Drugs.

Why we can drink to our desire a perfectly legal intoxicating cocktail and then are expected to go somewhere like home that doesn't serve alcohol without considering how most people get from place to place... wishful thinking.

The limit of impairment is different for everyone. Having a set legal number is a moronic answer to this question that only something as inept as a government could give an answer to.

It's really, sometimes unfortunately, up to the individual to know when they are too drunk as to be a danger to others. Personal responsibility is the mantra of this country. We can't have it both ways.

The bargain you make is if you can be identified as a likely drunk driver by your actions (swerving, failure to signal, speeding, etc) you should be expected to be pulled over and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Driving is not difficult. Some people suck at it when they're perfectly sober but expect to be called out for it when it's least convenient. That's a choice you made. Learn how to drive.