Monday, January 3

You just licked off the part that forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

So the constitution says this

"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."

And officials in florida interpret that to mean that this should be legal?

How is setting up a check point and requiring every single person to drive through a reasonable search? I would like to know what percentage of the population considers that reasonable? Upon what probably cause could a judge write a warrant requiring blood from someone simply because they don't want to take a breathalyzer test (especially if as the defense attorneys imply the breathelyzers are not perfectly accurate.) If someone was pulled over for driving erratically/and or failed a roadside sobriety test, that's one thing, but the cops don't have the time or man power to conduct sobriety tests on every driver so they want to just breathalyze everyone and punish those who refuse by taking their blood.

The best was when the anti drunk driving lady says the last thing she wants to dois violate people's civil rights, but they're there to save lives. Which is a casual admission that yes we are violating people's civil rights, but we're doing it for a good reason so that's okay. that's kind of whole point of civil rights, they aren't supposed to be violated for any reason. Otherwise a government can always come up with a "good reason" to violate someones rights. Also as a nice bonus, if it wasn't really bad enough that one state has decided to allow this unconstitutional action we have the federal tr4ansportation secretary urging more states to do it.

Beyond the illegality of this whole opperation, the other question is what is the point. Is it actually even effective at reducing drunk driving? According to reason, the answer is no. The ammount of man power required would be better off spread out looking for erratic driving than concentrated in a single area. And they claim that if you look at the reports afterwards you find very few people written up for drunk driving, but a whole host of people written up for other things like lapsed registration/not wearing a seatbelt/etc. So it turns out that the real point once again is to collect money from people. Budgets are being strained everywhere, politicians don't like new taxes, but we need new money. This way they can collect more money from people, while claiming they were trying to save lives. Anyone was really interested in preventing drunk driving they should just requiring breathalyzers in cars. That technology already exists. Someone has to blow into the tube and prove they are not drunk before they can drive. A lot of people are against that because it requires non drunk drivers to pay for having a breathalyzer in their car, but that is certainly no more a violation of their rights than taking their blood.


Blogger Aras said...

i don't see how a breathalyser in a car is worse than an airbag. and i think it's about 200 times cheaper. i don't even think that would be unconstitutional: they can test your vision, why can't they test your sobriety? one is every few years before you renew you license and the other is daily, but i don't see the difference.

if these check points are so well advertised, how are they making any money?

9:10 AM  
Blogger Trashcan said...

The problem with requiring breathalyzers is that you are presuming guilt. You are requiring me to prove that i am not committing a crime, instead of proving that i am committing a crime. And what's more, you are are requiring to to spend money in order to prove to you that i am not committing a crime. In the larger scheme of things and certainly considering what the government is already doing/spending to "prvent" drunk driving, i don't think anyone could dispute that it would be cheaper easier and far better to just require manufacturers to put them in all new cars.

But for people who are more interested in the principal of the subject i can understand being against them. Proving that are able to operate a vehicle and getting a license for it, or requiring a vehicle to have certain safety regualtions is different from requiring someone to prove they aren't committing a crime.

What if the government also for example mandated that all cars have chips that will monitor if you go over the speed limit. That technology exists also, in fact millions of people already use it in their cars in the form of GPS.

And although the existence of the checkpoints is public i doubt the location or times of them are. You can't just avoid driving. And for the most part the kinds of things you would get tickets for aren't things you are intentionally not doing (not putting on a seatbelt, renewing registration, etc.) they are things that are done accidentally.

1:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home