VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:20:17 02/15/02 Fri
Author: Donk
Author Host/IP: 79.indianapolis-24rh16rt.in.dial-access.att.net / 12.85.15.79
Subject: Re: Help with first ammendment rights--please
In reply to: Southern Gent 's message, "Help with first ammendment rights--please" on 15:57:26 02/15/02 Fri

You chose a hard one -- people naturally assume that if you're against an arbitrary measure of sobriety, then you're for drunk driving, traffic mayhem, and the slaughter of innocents.

This one is tough because it is a federal mandate forced upon the states. I think I would first write an E-mail to my federal congressman and senator and tell them you want that mandate revisited, then write an E-mail to your state representative telling them you think the law is arbitrary and without merit. The science basically supports your position in that the level is so low that levels of impairment can depend on way more than just alcohol.

The level is so low, that breathalyzers might be inadequate so only blood tests could work and at that level, even a blood test can't generalize impairment. Another issue is probable cause, so your argument about impairment is a good one.

If I casually drank and had to drive, I would refuse any tests. If I was so impaired that I needed arrested, then the tests are irrelevant and if I'm not, then I'm incriminating myself at the convenience of the law.

If you talk to the ACLU, ask them to explain how the Fifth Amendment gets left out of the equation. I think it has been argued that driving is a priviledge, not a right, so if one refuses the tests, then they forfiet their license. The question here is due process and the ACLU should have a position.

Does Georgia have referendums or initiatives? I wasn't aware that it did.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.