Just some of the stupid things I see

I guess I'd like to see the shangri la where it can be determined who will commit a crime, where, and to whom. In the meantime it's wrong to treat everyone like they are about to hurt someone.

 

Yes if the law did treat people that way in general, it would be wrong. However simply making a law against driving drunk, or a law against killing someone doesn't mean that you are being treated as a potential criminal. It just says that society feels these are things that are not acceptable behavior

 

This would be easy to pick apart, but out of respect for dog's request, I'll leave it alone. Swing by politics with that idea, and I'll show you the error of your ways. I'll be civil with you, but I can't protect your feelings from some of the folks that hang out in there.

 

RANDOM alcohol testing with absolutely no suspicion whatsoever is FAR from a simple law against drunk driving. If it isn't treating me as a potential criminal, then what is the point?

 

^^^ valid point^^^^ however in my own industry (oilfield) there is plenty of opportunity to be drug or alcohol impaired, and more than enough cash to afford it. That still doesn't justify random testing. However the level of risk to others and the potential catastrophic damage is a valid concern. One could still say well I was impaired x number of times and no harm was done. ok but can you absolutely 100% guarantee that the next time won't result in irreversible harm. I'm not saying it's always justified but let's say your company or industry has been having a large number of serious accidents caused by a certain problem maybe random testing would reduce the number of people willing to take the risk

 

Quite often a person driving without a license is much more of a risk because they have often been deemed unqualified for one reason or another.

God bless every American and their families! God bless the U.S.A.!

 

You can make yourself exempt from random alcohol testing by performing non safety sensitive functions within the transportation industry. Driving is considered a safety sensitive function. Doing so makes you subject to random alcohol testing. Persons performing safety sensitive functions are subject to a higher standard than those who do not, as it should be. If you choose not to drive, then you're exempt from random alcohol testing. Nobody's forcing you. If it's any consolation, the regulations state that the random alcohol test can only be called for while you are on duty.

 

Actually, no.

[video=youtube_share;lk65GKsQtWc]http://youtu.be/lk65GKsQtWc[/video]

 

The video that you posted has nothing to do with random testing; any testing would be done after establishing probable cause, and the blood testing only with a warrant. Although I believe that defense attorneys will have a field day filing civil rights suits against the government should they actually attempt to obtain a non-consensual blood sample. The government cannot perform invasive medical procedures without consent. Period.

 

17 counties in TN did it last weekend, it's already done. There's more articles and stuff about it. One thing about the warrants was that they were referred to as on site. As in, right there at the checkpoint. I understand the need to keep impaired drivers off the road, but this is just going too far for me.